Honestly, how long have they calculated machine data for snapmarks by now? Are they doing this with a slide rule? How come there’s “easier” machines to calculate it for? I would have assumed the machines were built to one spec… Then again, my alignment is off by about 3mm right under the lid camera, making that one as good as unusable. How that got through quality control is beyond me - I get better results aligning with a red dot laser and no camera on the Trotec I occasionally use…
Ah well, back to cutting jigs after jigs after jigs. I don’t expect to get any information from GF at this stage except “Oh look, a cool feature - but you can’t have it! And no, we’re not telling you why not.”
Sorry - had to get that rant out. Need… coffee… (and maybe a doughnut, while I’m at it).
My new “wind down from work” activity is coloring triskele(s). (What’s the plural of triskele?) With Snapmarks, they’re a breeze to make! I’m planning to make a stack for the waiting room at work.
The beta testers this time are being determined by certain metrics on our machines that we can’t see.
Dan discusses it here:
In other words…total chance. But the odds of getting picked are increasing as they roll it out to more and more machines, so good luck and keep your fingers crossed.
So, first time I tried to use the Snapmarks it seemed to work well, but the second time I tried it told me everything was fine, but started printing WAAAAY off to the side onto the honeycomb. I’ve tried moving things around and re-aligning, but it is always looking “crooked” and way off. Any ides what I’m doing wrong? Already double-check that I’m saving in plain SVG from Inkscape, and the size of the snapmarks matches the size mentioned earlier in the thread.
