Prerelease Trace Test on Cardstock

Again for clarification: was this with a design file already prepared that matched the printed file?

That is a totally different use scenario than the scan/trace situation. The Glowforge still has some room to grow when it comes to a trace accurately cutting around a scanned diagram.


That’s correct.

Yes, sorry, I guess I should have made that a separate post.

What’s the precision we’re looking for? A drawn/scanned image is going to have line thickness that the laser kerf won’t have. I did one last night (paper) and had registration problems until I adjusted the material thickness to match the paper then it registered correctly except there were parts of my drawing (actually a print of my drawing) that were thicker lines and it used the outside vs the center or inside of the line.

I can repeat it tonight by tack gluing the paper to a piece of wood for a better fit to the use case here. I’ll take photos/video and keep track of what the results are. I found the paper cutting to be fine. (I was using my Orodurin image that I posted on my initial setup plaque test.)

I was asking about your method in good faith. I thought that maybe your “three point” method may somehow be able to align the scan/trace scenario. Instead, I was given what seemed to be evasive answers.

Oh…I thought you just wanted to get in a little dig about us being evasive…my mistake.

(Edit: Removing your original post isn’t going to change my response here… That was a snarky little dig and you know it. Nice attempt to cover up though, by editing the word “evasive” into your second post here…)

For anyone else who might wish to know the answer to the question that wasn’t originally asked…

No, the three point method I used can’t be used to align the scan and trace results.

I can see that if I do continue to respond to posts, I’m going to have to start doing a quote capture of what I’m actually responding to. This is the third or fourth time in the last couple of weeks that what I actually responded to was altered by the original poster, making what I replied look unreasonable.

Is that really necessary?


I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here. I simply combined my two responses, the first being “that explains the evasive responses.” There’s really no difference between that and “I was given what seemed to be evasive answers.” Sorry if that offended you, but I do believe you were being purposely evasive.

Thanks for the descriptive post ! (Although now I wonder if cat/pig bacon tastes like fish…):cat::pig:
The laserbits masking - is that any particular tack?(light, heavy, med.?)

Yeah, much as i hate to admit it…you were too quick for me. You win.


@cynd11: That’s ok. It helped make the point but in another way.

I have no expectations about precision with the scan. Just showing what happens, especially as I did enter the thickness of material and how that makes a difference. I even wonder if I somehow nudged the image since it is slightly left shifted but I tried to take pics of exactly what happens. You can get some good precision but scanning a drawing is totally different from putting a design file in as you note. Especially when you start indicating where around the line the cut is going to fall. Being able to use a fine point sharply is a big improvement.

Show me how your machine does it. Having other references is great.


Definitely, the cutting of an autotrace on top of a scanned figure is less accurate than for a design file. What I find interesting is that the offset on your cat/piggy appears to be shifted more east or southeast whereas mine is more due south. But in both cases it is a pretty reproducible amount. It sure seems like there should be a way to compensate for these differences, and I’m betting GF team is right on it.


Yikes…this is what I’ve tried doing a search for…making multiples of the same thing! I couldn’t find it anywhere, so my wording must not have been just right. I remember seeing in the original video on the GF website…duplicating those party invitations. Can you tell me how to do that, please? I would be ever so grateful! :relaxed:

1 Like

In this particular case I created the design file with eight cats on it. But I think what you are seeing in the GF video is that after you cut something, take it out of the bed, put some new material in (or move the design over to an unused portion of your material) and re-run the job (after verifying that your settings are still correct for that material). You can do this as many times as you want as long as you don’t go back to the Design catalog space. If you do that you will have to re-select all the settings.


Also you can select the design and copy it, and paste it as many times as you wish and do it all in one setting if you have a a bed of material. (Just in case you were referring to this, stating the obvious, because the obvious sometimes is un-noted.)


I’ll say! I actually never have tried it, although I should have. Duh! Thanks!

One thing I did try, though, was holding down the space bar to switch to the hand tool, and I was delighted to discover that it works just like it does in Illustrator.


Get out of here. I wish they would have some tool tips or something. That switching back and forth drives me nuts. So we can toggle with space bar from select to move screen. Yippee. That is an obvious thing that I missed, like the contrast thing.


Really? That’s news! :relaxed:


I’m sure the “Glowforge for Dummies” book will be out by Thanksgiving .


OK…well, thank you. I was thinking maybe I could duplicate or copy something and just pile them on. So I guess that’s not an option. But, I suppose we can just do it like you did…put any number of things into one design. I was hoping there might be a cooler way. Appreciate your experience.

(saw this answered by marmak3261…thanks anyway!)

1 Like

Wow…I didn’t see this until after I posted back to cynd11. That’s exactly what I was wanting to know. We tried it last night and it didn’t work. We used keyboard shortcuts cmd C and cmd V. Seemed like it should work that way, so I’ll have to try it again. Thank you!