Close But No Cigar

Yup that’s totally normal. The further from the center, the more margin you need to give. That’s probably not going to get a lot better even though they claim to still be working on it. The best way to get efficient cuts is to do them at the same time, as operation-operation accuracy is real good, as long as the UI isn’t closed or the material isn’t moved.


Good tips…thanks! And good to know I’m not the only one. It just makes it really hard to use as much of your material as you can without waste.

And that’s disappointing that it will likely not improve from what it is now.

The really really good news is you can get a ton of use out of your stock.
If you had a laser that relied on coordinates for positioning instead of a camera, you would be throwing a good deal more of material away.
The UI makes it so easy to utilize what would otherwise be scrap on a lesser device.


Good point. Using coordinates would only work well for material usage of doing it all in one print job. There would pretty much be no way to put a partially used sheet back in and guess where those holes are.

You might give this method a try. It works pretty well and once you determine your offset you can reuse the numbers for multiple jobs. It does need to be repeated from time to time as they do updates to the software.


As always I refer back to using jigs as the only way to be dead sure on placement. That being said, I’m also a fan of the economic argument for “close enough”.

I posted about it here, but the whole thread is pretty good discussion:


I saw someone on the Facebook group that had received their laser and mentioned their general rule on other lasers they had experience with was to not keep any scraps less than something like 6”x6” - and how that rule went immediately out the window with the Glowforge. You might not be able to get 100% yield - but you can get quite a darn bit with almost no effort.


I’m going to have to give this a try. Thanks!

There is definitely “good enough.” I just need to keep this in mind and not try to be so cheap with materials. Going to read through the discussion now.

Wow! That makes what I’m complaining about seem like total whining! That’s a TON of waste!

1 Like

Jigs sound good and when making a lot of the same small thing a good way to go, but no matter what you still have to eyeball the first cut even if it is to make that jig, and for many things that first cut is “the cut”.

What also helps is before you "eyeball"that first cut to reboot the whole machine and before turning it back on, move the gantry all the way to the back making sure both ends are touching the back. I was having a lot of trouble with horizontal lines that weren’t horizontal til I discovered that was the problem. It does not have to be off by much, to throw everything off by a lot more.

A newly rebooted machine will be about as accurate as it will get, and any recalibration that happens will move as close to that booting calibration as possible so the change can be the least.

1 Like

Nope. You don’t have to eyeball the first important cut at all.

Layout your file to the exact measurements of your desired material. Cut jig from cardboard or other waste material. Back Desired material up to your jig. Voila.

Like so:

I just used this technique today on a small piece. It’s rock solid, accurate to about a kerf if done correctly.

1 Like

I just made a batch of joists 19.5x2.65 stacked for four at a time. There was not much room for jigs. The only wood outside all the cuts that was visible on the screen was at the bottom where I have standard offsets.even the hold down pins at the last hole in the crumb tray ended up getting cut.

It will be interesting to see if I can create a 32" X 72" span that can support 300 lbs with in the Glowforge limits.


I concur. I don’t eyeball any cut placement on jigs… I just set it up in the file and hit print.

I did a one-edge jig shown here (second pic, left edge):

You should be able to easily achieve sub-millimeter precision with a jig like this.

I did three passes on this and the head jumped again just this past hour on what I presume is the third pass.

What has support said about the subsequent passes not aligning?

Not much as yet. They are “working on it” I need to show the problem on a proof grade cut that is only a single pass in any case.

I engrave a lot of large cutting boards. The finished size of them is often 11.7"x17.5" so there is really no room in the Glowforge for a jig in that instance, just as @rbtdanforth said. So far, I’ve been able to use some painter’s tape for masking and layout. I will use a square and draw a line at the bottom of where my imprint needs to be. That way, I can do a pretty good job of making my engraving parallel to that line, which is perpendicular to the sides. Also, I will mark a halfway line on the piece so I can line it up in the center. It is not perfect, but it is darn close. So far, nobody has been able to tell.

I think what I would do there is create a rectangle about 10.5x17.5". Then, I’d delete the bottom line out of the rectangle (leaving 3 sides to score). Set up your design and score in one file so that it’s properly aligned relative to one another. Score the 3-sided alignment aid onto a piece of chipboard, or cheap sacrificial material and place my cutting board right on top of the score. You’ll be aligned to two corners, two sides and the back side, which is enough for it to be aligned square.

1 Like

I agree with @jbmanning5 more or less though I prefer to back the cutting board up against at least one edge, rather than eyeing it on top of a score. Even if you just use the one edge (like I did with a 12x18 slate cheeseboard in the post I mentioned above) and align it to a score line, you should be able to get <1mm precision. I really do need to thoroughly document this process.

If you want to lock in a corner, it comes down to actual engrave size. I get that the cutting board is 11.7x17.5, but how large is your actual engraving? I could get a corner jig to work on that cutting board with an engrave as large as 10.5x18, I think.

In your case it may not be worth it, you say that your process is working well, so then go for it… but if you want or need to get kerf-level precision, corner jig away.


Yeah, so far, I’ve been pretty pleased with the result. I might need to make a jig, but I would be remaking the jig all of the time like in your example because no two of the boards are exactly the same size or thickness. I just kind of go with what the wood wants…and if it is slightly longer by the time I get it glued up and planed/sanded, I leave it as long as it can be, but still fit in the Glowforge.

The engraving is only about 2.5" tall and maybe 4" wide…maybe 5".

That makes sense to do this, and I might with more of them that I do in the future. So far, using sight and some of those alignment methods has worked pretty well. This is just text, so it is not as noticeable if it is off by a very slight amount. If I started using some shapes for scoring that came close to edges, and your eye could tell easily that it was off, I would definitely have to adopt a different method. Like @evansd2 did with his slate piece…it had that square all of the way around the piece. That would have noticeable if it was off even just a little.

I still think eyeballing this would be about as difficult as just using the camera to place it. Am I missing something? With it sitting on top of the chipboard score and not registering against it in a corner, how would it be exact?

How? I guess I didn’t think there was that much room to allow for that?