Being very clear, this is NOT a “repeat last job” request.
From time to time, I have to cut a ton of cards from cardstock. Given the size of the card and working area I can only get in 8 cards per print.
It would be sweet, that when you send to print, you can tell it how many copies you want. At the end of the cycle, remove/replace material, close the lid and hit the magic button and the GF would immediately start cutting again. Software would keep all settings the same and keep count of the number of prints until you reach the number of copies requested.
Having this feature would be super rad, hella cool, and quite frankly would make @dan Father of the Year, or earn him a Nobel Peace Prize for best new feature on the GF award.
Actually, that is pretty much here. Once the job is done, I lift the lid and replace or even flip the previous pieces, close the lid, and use the set focus (though that is just for my checking) and run the file again. As the precision placement has not changed, the cutting location will not change, even if the view in the GFUI looks off. It still runs the calculation but that is a small percentage of the time.
Thank you for this thoughtful question, and rbtdanforth for a great response as well!
This really is a fantastic idea for a feature request, and I really appreciate your thoughtfulness in your response. I will make sure to pass this along to the team!
rbtdanforth I lift the lid and replace or even flip the previous pieces, close the lid, and use the set focus (though that is just for my checking) and run the file again.
What you are describing is exactly not that. That is simply operating the GF as is and manually setting focus. I would ask that you time your process and see if there is any savings in time. This little card stock project of mine takes 68 seconds to run, and 40 seconds to upload/prep/scan/focus/etc…basically doubling the time it takes me to do the job.
jbmanning5 What’s functionally different between this and repeat last job? The counter for sure. But not sure what else.
Glowforge has made it very clear they are not going to be implementing a “repeat last job” option as its been brought up for years now. This is a different approach that is a little more mindful of where GF is in the market and their liabilities with product. A “repeat last job” option can be a careless operation in my mind. I own a fiber galvo laser and a CNC machining center where you can simply hit “go” for the next job, and indeed it is a mindless operation, change parts, hit “go”, repeat, don’t change parts, hit “go”, the machine doesn’t care. User error is the #1 source of rejected parts, we also need to be mindful that those machines are built for this, and not geared towards the craft market, you screw up, that’s on you.
The difference in function is this, printing multiple copies in a GF, while it seems like a “repeat last job” , it is quite a bit different, the user now has to be conscious of how many prints are going to be made, ensure they have enough material, ensure the material is in the same place each and every time, and prevents the user from running it infinitely. You have a finite number with a finite outcome and pretty sure GF can incorporate any checks and balances into the driver of this without making it super bloaty. In the end it will keep from having to upload the artwork each and every cycle, which can be a significant time suck.
Do you have the Premium add-on? I am not impressed by any speed up of processing time as it is normally a very minor part of the total time, but I do find many of the other parts very useful. If it speeds up your processing time you might find it more valueable.
Again, cannot justify a monthly on something that every other manufacture already has incorporated into their equipment. Might as well just buy a different machine.
Every machine has slightly different points a $40k machine will be much faster, a $400 machine will be more limited, and both would be harder to use. There are folk here who moved up to the more expensive machines because they have made the money and volume to have to do that, but they got there with their Glowforge. I have had to turn down jobs that would have never made enough cost/volume to make a profit. Finding that balance is hard and I have certainly not done it yet, but if I had started with the $400 machine it would not have made the first thing because I do not have the electronic chops to do so.
Hi everyone, I’ve confirmed that my colleague has passed on this request to the team. I’m going to close this thread. If you’d like to continue the conversation, feel free to start a new thread in Everything Else.
