Absolutely. Snapmarks is something we’re considering in the future. One other piece I neglected to mention, though, was that it was expensive to support. Since support costs are included in the price of your initial purchase, we can’t add free extra features that create a lot of support tickets. We’ll have to solve that somehow if we are going to roll it out again.
8 Likes
I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll say it again. I know folks would appreciate even having it as an ‘unsupported’ feature until you are ready to revisit it again. Even just a quick popup in the UI saying that it is unsupported would go a long way to cut down support tickets that would pop up from any errors.
I’m fortunate to have it and it works amazing for my workflow but I know I just got lucky and more folks would love to have it.
4 Likes
Unfortunately calling it unsupported does not reduce support tickets. 
8 Likes
I do find it absolutely ridiculous that on the purchase page it is suggested that the ‘Pro’ model is a $16,000 value, has multiple cameras in the unit, yet it does not include fiducial alignment.
You can buy a vinyl cutter for $300 that can do fiducial alignment at a big box store, but a ‘$16,000 value’ pro laser cutting production machine does not have this or absolute positioning as a standard feature.
The suggestion made at one point that this could be a ‘purchased’ feature in the future is really tone deaf. I owned a Craft Robo Pro (vinyl cutter) over 10 years ago that had this feature.
The ‘support tickets’ statement and the suggestion that it is a huge burden is so insulting. Most issues are resolved by community members responses well before an admin is even involved in the thread. The staff role is usually to type ‘I see your issue is resolved, i am going to close this thread’.
Most of the snapmark threads are people begging to have the feature on their machine, or asking why it was removed from their machine.
8 Likes
The complaint isn’t really snapmarks themselves, it is the lack of promised features (passthrough, precise placement via lid camera) that makes snapmarks valuable as a partial delivery on the commitment. If we had those, nobody would be upset about snapmarks going away.
3 Likes
Did you run the Camera Calibration? That and the Set Focus tool have done an excellent job of correcting for the early alignment issues.
2 Likes
Yes, I ran the Camera Calibration. Accuracy to within a quarter inch is fine for placing a cut/engrave onto a piece of unused material, but it’s not accurate enough to place a cut/engrave so that it’s positioned precisely to align with the material - I still have to set up a jig (or SnapMarks) if I want precise alignment to existing material. For example, engraving front and back of a medallion can’t be done with just the camera, because even a slightly off-center engrave looks wrong.
The issue is that the lid camera has an extreme angle, and not great resolution, so for precise placement (e.g. cuts aligning) the Glowforge needs to use the head camera. That’s the approach that Dan’s been talking about for years now, and that’s how SnapMarks are precise, but it’s not otherwise used by the Glowforge.
1 Like
That’s what Set Focus does. If you use it on the center of the medallion, it will be treated as if it is directly underneath the lid camera. (It corrects for the camera distortion in that spot.) I’m getting` within a mm accuracy when I use it, even out at the edges of the bed.
Although, I do agree the Snapmarks are definitely better for some things. (Print and Cut files and re-use of jigs mainly.) So i’d absolutely like to see them do something with it down the road. I don’t have a problem with them finishing up on the filter and the Passthrough software first though - I think more people are waiting on those and it’s been a long wait for most of them.
It’s all triage. I can wait my turn. I’d really like to encourage everyone to be patient. And try to enjoy the releases when they come out…it keeps things exciting, instead of frustrating. 
3 Likes
But don’t you already have Snapmarks? I guess I’m not sure what we’re waiting for. There is absolutely no promise that we’ll ever get Snapmarks if we don’t already have them. There’s no promise that we’ll get anything at all in the ballpark. I’m wishing for them, but not waiting; it’s been well over a year now.
I think it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that we can’t be happy with one set of things because we’re disappointed with another, though. I love my GF, even if everything isn’t perfect. Heck, I love my husband and kids and they aren’t perfect either! (And I’d like to think they feel the same)
4 Likes
@jasonmichaeljones I have been suggesting that putting the source up on github and letting real developer hobbyists help on this very thread for over a year. Since we could program, test and support features developed easily 1000x faster than the cousins and dorm mates currently hired…
Some of us work for real development companies too and would be thrilled to help for no money, just the ability to HELP add features through iterative hypothesis based development (like our day jobs) instead of the single threaded process where development stops because you get a ticket… IDK maybe this guy has the right idea, @dan YOU COULD LIKELY hire him… https://www.instructables.com/id/3D-Printer-Laser-Modification/
Or anyone in this thread https://hackaday.com/category/laser-hacks/
It is really sad that this “organization” is set up in a way that tickets actually affect development… That should never happen (it hasn’t been the way real companies work since the 90s) Maybe you should have your developers develop and your support staff support… or better yet see my earlier entries about how we could just support ourselves (and likely you too) if you opened the source, and it wouldn’t even cut into your profits… most likely it would improve them.
1 Like
I don’t think tickets stopped development. I think they had limited resources and chose to prioritize other things. Snapmarks were a means to an end and they felt like they had gotten what they needed. The volume of tickets kept them from releasing them as an unsupported option, though.
I’d love to see the option for people to build tools, mods, etc, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. Dan’s point about “unsupported” features still generating support tickets is a valid one. We see it every day with non-PG materials. And GF doesn’t only draw savvy, hardcore DIYers who will seek out their own answers. They are drawing a lot of people who want easy answers with minimal effort. GF is marketed to them.
5 Likes
Yes, I do. I was one of the first to volunteer to beta test them, and got to help develop uses for them. (And I’m not using them now in solidarity for all the people who don’t have them yet. They need to see how other people are going to use them, and gather data from them.) If the other testers who have them aren’t using them, they might decide not to allocate the resources to it in the future.
But…to everyone who is still concerned about it… I know they’re still considering them from things Dan has said here on the forum. The beta test is still going on. The only thing that changed was that they closed the beta test when they had enough machines to get a good sample for data gathering, and it got temporarily “back-burnered” from a support standpoint. They are still gathering the data from it.
That’s my read on it anyway. And it fits with the way they have been doing things, and with good business practice in general. I’m not sure I would have released the beta test widely as early as they did, but it turns out they were actually using the Snapmarks beta to fine tune the Recalibrator and Set Focus tools. Those went out to everyone, so everyone has already benefited from it, and I think it turned out to be a good call.
Just think of the Snapmarks beta as a Preview of Coming Attractions. Good things are coming once they shoot the film. 
3 Likes
Sure, I’m not angry or anything - any time you buy a product before it’s finished there’s a risk that it won’t happen, or won’t be what’s promised, and (from doing many Kickstarters) I accept that risk in return for early access and a discount. What I was reacting to what posts that were rather insulting to people who were upset about Snapmarks not getting rolled out, because I can certainly sympathize - Snapmarks makes the GF much closer to what was originally promised.
For me, Snapmarks effectively gives me “passthrough” because you can break your design into panels and put snapmarks on the corners of the design (in an area that you aren’t using), and each panel aligns to the previous one, so you can slide the material up and cut /engrave the next section, repeatedly, allowing me to make huge things like partitions.
I know that GF is saying that the support costs of SnapMarks are too high. Of course they have to manage costs, but I’d hope that with disclaimers everywhere that SnapMarks is an unsupported feature, that their support system could auto-respond to any SnapMark questions with a link to the support forums.
1 Like
True that, the waiting is hard. It’s hard on all of us, but it also gives us something to look forward to. With another company I would likely worry a lot more about it, but they are slowly but surely rolling out what is feasible to implement, and what we have asked for, wherever it is possible. (Been watching them do it for the last four years…this isn’t the same machine they originally dreamed of…it’s better. )
And with the small team they’re working with, it’s kind of astonishing too. I’d be afraid to look like a complete fool if I ever met them. 
I do have one major criticism…they do not do the best job of heralding their own achievements. People don’t seem to realize exactly how spectacular some of the things they’ve already accomplished are. So they get overlooked in favor of what still hasn’t been released yet.
But…it’s all good. It will just keep improving, and the company will be surprising us with good things for years to come. I like long term planning.
And unfortunately now I have to go get ready for a funeral.
1 Like
Honestly, I think they should focus on Snapmarks. A promised feature to the entire owner-base was precision alignment, and they haven’t provided that. As was said before, the current system is fine for placing a cut on a fresh piece of material, but it is absolutely impossible to correctly align print and cut type projects with visual alignment, even if they had sub-mm accuracy on the camera. The biggest problem is rotation. If my page is rotated even a fraction of a degree from the cut file, then I lose the page. With Snapmarks I can cut 200 stickers on one sheet perfectly.
Anyway, Snapmark is a resolution to provide the entire owner-base with precision placement. If I ever lost it I don’t know what I would do. Visual placement is just not accurate enough for my use.
[Edit] I recognize that I am extremely lucky to have Snapmark already. I love the Glowfogre, but my usage would be extremely limited if I didn’t have the feature. Sorry if I sound ungrateful for this amazing machine and the ability to be involved in testing this feature.
4 Likes
I also was on the very early volunteer list, but my may machine was never deemed compatible (it was specifically deemed incompatible at the time). I was well aware, long before they discontinued them, that I might never get them. I’m fine. So while I appreciate the attempt at solidarity, it doesn’t do any of us any good for you to not use Snapmarks. Honestly, I’d rather you use them and enjoy them and make amazing things. It’s frustrating to see people say they’ve never even tried them!
I think what you may see as negativity is actually what we’re using to show solidarity. No amount of pep talks in the world are going to make those of us who want Snapmarks stop feeling disappointed when we think about not getting them, but knowing we aren’t alone in that disappointment helps a bit.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not spending any real energy moping over Snapmarks. I know the data led to other great things, and I know more great things will come in time. But as a complex human being, I am able to see all of those good things and still hold disappointment where appropriate. I see the grumbling as positive. Not only is it unhealthy to sweep negative feelings under the rug, but the ongoing feedback allows GF to see that there continues to be a need. I’m the first to cheer them on when we get a fantastic new feature, but I’m also going to speak up when something isn’t quite right. Honestly, it’s what I’d want my customers to do for me.
5 Likes
Oh yeah, I know, that wasn’t directed your way…that’s why I made a point to mention “anyone who was concerned about it”.
Most folks don’t actually speak up on the forum, but they do lurk. A little perspective (from both sides of the issue) can’t hurt. If the complaints become too one sided, (which is normal, but unfortunate), it might actually cause Glowforge to decide it’s not worth it. Also, I really hate to see people fretting over something that a little time might resolve completely.
A lot of the angst might just boil down to most folks not having been exposed to a beta test before…they can run on for a long time, as you probably know.
2 Likes
I have done the calibration, and even with that, and using Set Focus on an object right in the center of the bed, the camera accuracy is not adequate to do something like align artwork in the center of a medallion.
Set Focus is great for making better use of cutting things out of scrap, but in terms of trying to line up art on an existing piece… It is inadequate for me.
YMMV.
2 Likes
You might want to rerun the calibration. You can get improved results with subsequent runs…mine improved a great deal the second time around.
2 Likes
I have already done it twice. I am sure I will give it another shot eventually.