OctoPrint vs. AstroPrint

Introduction

All 3D printers need host software to function. Host software is responsible for sending the actual commands to the 3D printer that tell the printer how to build an object. Most host software communicates with the printer via a wired USB connection. For most 3D printers, a computer running the host software must stay connected to the 3D printer at all times during use.

An increasing number of 3D printer operators are looking for ways to use their 3D printers remotely. Wireless 3D printing has a number of advantages over the traditional wired setup:

• The 3D printer can be placed away from the operator’s work area, which reduces disruptive noises and smells generated by all 3D printers.
• Reducing the number of cords provides a cleaner setup.
• The 3D printer can be operated and monitored with a phone or tablet that is not normally capable of running host software.
• Sharing a 3D printer is easier as it does not require sharing the connected computer.
• The 3D printer can be operated from anywhere in the world over the internet.

There are basically two ways to do wireless 3D printing. First, a g-code file can be saved onto an SD card using a computer, then the SD card can be transferred to the 3D printer where the print job is initiated via a controller build into the 3D printer. This arrangement technically allows wireless 3D printing, but it lacks most the advantages of a truly wireless setup as described above. The 3D printer can still be placed away from the designer’s work area, but beyond that, using the SD card transfer method is no different from transferring the data over a cable. The second way to do (truly) wireless 3D printing is by running the host software on a small embedded device, like the Raspberry Pi, that is connected to the 3D printer. This is a bit like using a dedicated computer for 3D printing that stays connected to the printer at all times. But, instead of using a fully-fledged computer for this purpose, the host software can be run on something like a Raspberry Pi, which is just powerful enough to run the software. The two most popular host software packages developed for wireless 3D printing are OctoPrint and AstroPrint. This post compares these two popular systems. Before beginning the comparison, it should be noted that OctoPrint and AstroPrint are not true alternatives in the strictest sense of the word. AstroPrint is, in fact, based on OctoPrint. However, the AstroPrint team has made sweeping changes and additions to the software, making these two host software offerings quite a bit different in many ways.

Hardware Installation

If you purchase AstroPrint’s dedicated hardware, the AstroBox, the hardware setup is as easy as plugging in the device.

For setting up AstroPrint on a Rasberry Pi, the process is almost identical to the process for OctoPrint.

• Download the Raspberry Pi image for the AstroPrint (requires registration)
• Install the image onto the Raspberry Pi’s SD card
• Set up the AstroPrint software (next section)

Documentation for installing AstroPrint on a Raspberry Pi is a bit more sparse than the documentation for OctoPrint. So, I actually wrote a tutorial on Instructables to cover the process.

Setting up AstroPrint on the Raspberry Pi is extremely easy because the code base is more unified than OctoPrint. Just go to AstroPrint’s website and download the Raspberry Pi image.

Software Setup

Setting up the AstroPrint software is an extremely easy and straightforward process, not just compared to other 3D printer host software; setting up AstroPrint is an easy, even enjoyable, process compared to any software. I really think all software developers should make software setup processes as easy as the AstroPrint team has made theirs.

The entire AstroPrint setup process is done via a simple and beautiful graphical interface. You do not need to do any manual modification of the software code to configure the software. The process is quick and painless.

User Interface

OctoPrint and AstroPrint have fundamentally different design philosophies.

OctoPrint is designed for a user with much more 3D printing experience than AstroPrint, whereas AstroPrint is designed to be easy to use and easy to understand. AstroPrint keeps things simple; the interface provides access to the functionality the user needs to complete their job, while leaving out more granular controls. The AstroPrint development team has clearly put effort into making their interfaces clean and uncluttered. AstroPrint also has a more visual design than OctoPrint.

A good example of the fundamental differences between these two systems is the manual printer control interfaces. Both OctoPrint and AstroPrint allow the user to remotely control the 3D printer by moving the axes, heating the hot end, extruding filament, and toggling fans.

The AstroPrint interface is not very much different than the OctoPrint interface, the basic controls available are exactly the same, with the exception, again, of some more advanced controls being omitted from AstroPrint. The AstroPrint interface is colorful and beautiful.

AstroPrint also works much better on mobile devices than OctoPrint. The AstroPrint buttons are large and are easy to tap with a finger on a phone. The AstroPrint interface is also responsive, meaning that the controls rearrange themselves based on screen size. On a computer screen the controls are arranged horizontally, but on a phone screen they stack vertically. AstroPrint is much, much easier to use on a phone.

Printing

Of course, the main purpose of both OctoPrint and AstroPrint is to actually do 3D printing. Again, OctoPrint and AstroPrint have fundamentally different design philosophies for the interfaces each system provides for monitoring prints.

As with the user interface in general, AstroPrint displays the most important information in a large, colorful, easy-to-read format. The main elements on the print management interface for AstroPrint are the time left in the print, and the printer status. Information that is likely less important for non-expert 3D printer operators, like the volume of filament, and data transferred, are omitted. Lower on the screen, information about hot end and bed temperatures is available, but not in graphical format.

Again, AstroPrint is  much easier to use on a mobile device than OctoPrint.

One of the best features of AstroPrint is its cloud slicing service. With OctoPrint, 3D models must be processed by slicing software on a computer, and the resulting gcode must be uploaded to the OctoPrint server. With AstroPrint, slicing is done via AstroPrint’s servers. This means there is no need for a computer at all, for any part of the printing process. Just download a model you want to print from one of the services provided on the AstroPrint Dashboard, and get printing. You can do everything from a phone or tablet if you want.

Conclusion

Overall, both OctoPrint and AstroPrint are great 3D printing host software offerings. I think AstroPrint is a more polished package than OctoPrint, on which AstroPrint is based. The AstroPrint development team has clearly put a great deal of effort into making the user experience as simple and streamlined as possible.

But, the most important difference between OctoPrint and AstroPrint is that they are built for two different groups of users. OctoPrint is made for experienced 3D printer operators who want complete control over their 3D printer settings. OctoPrint provides access to extensive customization options, and provides data that experienced Makers can used to fine tune the performance of their printer and OctoPrint itself.

AstroPrint is made for 3D printer operators with a low to intermediate level of experience. AstroPrint is focused on providing a smooth and fast user experience. AstroPrint is much easier to set up than OctoPrint, and requires less configuration from the user. AstroPrint is also fantastic on a mobile device like a phone or tablet. AstroPrint features large, colorful buttons that are easy see on a small screen and easy to tap with a finger.