Some videos showing a different way to do passthrough. This time, with a conveyer. Rather than the “forge cuts, human moves, forge aligns next cut, repeat…” mode we have with GF, this one moves the material as it cuts. All the y axis moves are via the conveyer, while the laser moves in the x direction like a conventional cut. Pretty slick. My success rate with this method is much higher vs. the GF passthrough. One key to success is using tab generators that leave a tiny bit uncut every so often. This keeps cut out parts from falling into the machine and getting in the way of the motion. The software makes adding these tabs relatively easy. Thus far, using tabs of 0.3 mm and 0% power every 30 mm has held it all together during cutting and punching the parts out afterwards is a lot like popping bubble wrap ( more fun than tedious for now) .
lessons learned:
Your material needs to be about 8 inches longer that your cut. This is so that the conveyer drive can remain in contact while cutting.
Position the conveyer rails at the outer edges of your material with your design between them. You do not want to be cutting on top of the rails inside the machine if you can help it.
If you do not punch out the parts from your first cut, it is possible to reverse the material and cut something else from the other end. The drive does not dislodge the cut bits.
That is an interesting solution. Since I have owned my Pro passthrough has gone from nonexistent to poor to pretty good. An alternative for things where the pass-through doesn’t work is to simply make separate files and do some math to index by a specific amount and then continue with the next file.
Right, that’s why I said “pretty good” I still get a one in 4 or 5 fail rate. If I had a lot of the same thing or was using expensive materials I’d definitely do the muli file method. Also just won’t work on material where there is no contrast after the cut. 100% fail rate on black Adams foam board.
The only issue I’ve had with passthru is that when engraving, it always makes the first pass on a new step at zero power. 100% reliable “fail” that results in a noticeable line in the resulting parts. I reported it years ago. Documented it heavily with pics and video. They won’t even acknowledge it, let alone fix it. It simply applies no power at all on the first sweep of the head.
Otherwise alignment between steps has always been reliable once I figured out the limitations of the camera.
Worth noting, I’m on my 2nd machine and it’s no different. It’s a software (cloud) issue, not a machine issue.
the machine has made a difference in passthrough. My first one, was never good at it, the first refirb was much better and the most recent was almost as good until the led lights failed and now it is rotten.
Definitely. It happens to me 100% of the time. I can usually knock down the little ridge it leaves but it’s still noticeable as not having been engraved because there’s no browning of that missed line.
It’s one of the more irritating failures of GF’s responsiveness.
I’ve read through the discussion, and appreciate sharing each other’s experience. Supporting the material outside of the printer helps remove the material bowing or bending, but the unexpected behaviors mentioned in responses can be sent to support for further review and action.
Unfortunately, resolving this in a general thread is harder, so I would suggest contacting support, especially if it’s been some time since you worked with them I know some points of frustration with responsiveness and not being heard, but the discussed issues are not expected behaviors. Getting any updates to support can help fellow users in the future who want to utilize the feature. When you reach out, feel free to include any previous support ticket numbers related to the Passthrough trouble. The support team can factor that into review and troubleshooting actions.
Support has expanded channels, contact methods, and live support hours in Announcements:
I know the company cannot jump every time a forum user posts a problem, but here are some very, very experienced and technical users here who can occasionally provide excruciating detail on reproducible bugs. If a user like @eflyguy has documented a problem, it’s a real problem.
Bugs that cause a failure to engrave or cut as instructed are awful since they can waste material. They can also linger for years, which makes us mistrustful that reporting them (again) to front-line support will result in a fix.
You guys are doing a good job at improving support, and we do notice and appreciate it. Addressing long-standing material-wasting bugs would be a wonderful next step in those efforts.
I appreciate the response, and there is no doubt that @eflyguy and others providing detailed issues with the Passthrough function. I apologize for any confusion with my last response. I sincerely want to help everyone experiencing trouble and find the best paths to get this reviewed and raised for larger visibility.
Before working with the communities, I was a part of our Technical Support team for years. They can access the printer’s log files for review and spot trends that lead to updated solutions and troubleshooting paths.
Bugs that cause a failure to engrave or cut as instructed are awful since they can waste material. They can also linger for years, which makes us mistrustful that reporting them (again) to front-line support will result in a fix.
This is a completely valid concern, and I understand the hesitancy to avoid wasting material that you have on hand. However, you can mention that in the conversation with support to see if they send replacement material due to the unresolved trouble. I can’t guarantee that this will be done, but you can mention the material waste concerns to support as well.
Especially when they’ve been reported multiple times in the past (as is the case with this one). It’s pretty apparent from GF’s responses when something is a priority on their end so when something is reported more than once and nothing happens, we’re smart enough to figure out we’re wasting our time continuing to beat what appears to be a dead horse.
It’s especially the case when a feature is new and it would be normal practice to attempt to fix defects early on. When the feature ages, unaddressed latent defects are just gravity and we deal with it or abandon the feature like @evansd2 did with this one.
What really made me abandon is is reality and my standards.
There’s just no way you’re getting the accuracy you need with that lid or head camera, you’ll always see a seam of some sort. Engraving is delicate business, if you’re off angle or position by a tiny amount, you’ll see it. I just don’t believe that we’re ever going to get that kind of performance from a camera based operation, or at least certainly not with this current technology/implementation.
Physics won’t let you cheat. I decided that for my purposes it wasn’t worth beating my head against this wall, perfect passthrough engraving (or perfect passthrough performance in general with this solution) is vaporware. I don’t want to make the necessary concessions to my standards for finished products, so I instead make concessions in my designs so that they aren’t affected by the machine’s weaknesses.
Ok so that phrasing was harsh, perhaps “I make designs that I can execute well and take advantage of the machine’s true abilities.”
I think your original was fine and is in line with what I do. It’s a weakness if it doesn’t do what it is advertised to do.
This issue seems like it should be simple to fix. Like it’s a simple comparison issue in the code (checking for greater than vs greater than or equal) when starting the next engraving section. Heck, it would be simple to just fix the symptom - back the gantry down one line and proceed so the non-firing line is done over the last engraved line. (Although that would introduce another discontinuity in the engrave, but perhaps a less noticeable one.)
Yeah maybe there is a problem with the first line power, I tend to believe @eflyguy when it comes to technical issues… But it doesn’t solve the problem of camera resolution and positional accuracy nor of horizontal scan lines and potentially off angle material between stages. You will see a difference in the quality of the engrave, no matter what they do.
I’ve used passthrough really only once, was in four sections. The issue I ran into presumably was tube temps changing the engrave quality. Especially when there was a few hours between the first three sections and the last one. Otherwise the sections did match up for me.
