Material Thickness Limit Increase?


#1

I just set a material thickness to 0.475" and it accepted it and engraved. Did the 0.433" limit get removed?

image


#2

Yep, Looks like it now maxes out at 0.5" per the specification.


#3

Yeeeehaw!


#4

That ROCKS! Woot woot


#5

Awesome! Thanks @dan/@staff! (weird, I can’t tag @glowforgestaff anymore).


#6

Oh SUPER squeeeeeeeeeee! :squeeee::squeeee::squeeee::squeeee::squeeee::grinning:


#7

Meant to mention this a day or two ago.


#8

I also don’t remember it going out to 3 decimal places??? It would round to the hundredths


#9

I think that’s right, because when I was trying to cut some cardstock over the weekend, I remember .008 had to be rounded up to .01


#10

Yay! (I am still going to very gently see what happens to the air assist scoop when I pass 0.500 material under it.)


#11

That is awesome news!


#12

Yeah, I know mine will still go whacky-whacky at 0.467 inches, so I’m not going to get too excited just yet…but it does bode well for the future. :smile:


#13

Wasn’t going to comment on the earlier post because I didn’t think it would provide any useful info. But as an explanation of what you saw. I was always able to enter 0.433" as the maximum. It doesn’t round the number. You might find it useful to know that the reason it rounded to 0.01" is because that is the minimum value that can be entered.

Edited post for clarity.


#14

That makes sense, cause I remember it bumping up to that but also had a recollection of 3 places. Thanks for the clarification


#15

It also lends such gravitas to those posts you make since value=scarcity+utility.


#16

Ok, Thanks?


#17

I just noticed that my comment could have been interpreted as if I didn’t care for your post. Absolutely not. I was trying to say that if I were to disagree just to be argumentative and with no useful info that wouldn’t say much about me.


#18

You’d think THIS would be in Latest Improvements?! I mean… It’s kinda NEWS!


#19

Unless it’s a bug…


#20

No worries. I appreciate you clarifying that the behavior I saw was the minimum value and not a digits of precision limit.