I would suspect that this is the easiest way forward, but the dummy piece does need to be exactly the same height if my suspicions are correct.
I’m interested in this problem as I’m hoping to post engrave my fan frames in a similar fashion.
That is what I did and it seem to do what I was expecting. Still wondering if it used the measurement from that scrap wood and not what I set…
I did a second test and set the focus height to material thickness -.001 just to see if it would use the Red Dot or not. I found that if it is automatically filled in once material thickness, it seems to used the red dot.
If I manually input material thickness I also then have to change the auto filled in Focus height or it will use the Red Dot measurement.
I remember Scott saying that the hardware was capable of higher resolution focus than they had enabled. Now what he didn’t make clear was whether to enable the finer resolution was totally S/W or whether he was just talking about the motors and it required a change to the control H/W.
So when I saw the focus improvement update, sort of put it away as something I wouldn’t know without additional info.
I’m not opposed to the way it is currently set up. I think they are shooting for a fail safe - a person putting material in and either guesstimating or using a ruler or something to measure thickness. Or, a person buying 1/4” plywood and putting 1/4” material thickness in. (I saw a Lowe’s plywood product someone linked to in the Facebook group - it’s called quarter inch… guess what the actual thickness is - .1875” - lose 20-30 thousandths from nominal to finished, ha!)
Though I think it could actually be expanded upon.
An advanced scan override would be nice and save time.
A forced scan, kind of like bed image refresh, where it scanned the material and populated the material height/focus sections. That would get the bad measurers the most accurate placement. And others could just put the calipers away…
I wasn’t a fan of the red dot method at first - where it overrode your manual thickness/focal point, until I thought about it.
I think the hitting a hole thing is a bug. If you have ignored elements, it should ignore those elements and only scan where an active element is.
Thanks @jbmanning5 for pointing to the proofgrade not recognized post and @mad_macs for sharing your info. Unfortunately, I don’t yet have more to add. I’m going to close this thread – please open a new one if you have a new question.