I used to use Actions in AI, which is a type of macro, (push one button to run it, and it prompts you for the necessary input, then makes the changes), but it’s been a while since I wrote one. Refresher work is gonna be needed.
And I’m running an old version of AI (CS5)…we’re going to have a problem with people running all different versions of the software as well as totally different software. So there might not be an easy answer for this one.
I agree that the store has the potential to become a mess if it’s not implemented. If we do not have a method for adjusting designs to material width, we at least need clear guidelines on how to post our designs to handle this (perhaps have several copies of the designs for several different widths we support).
I like your ideas of using color for lines that need to be resized. But I do have reservations about how practical it is in real life. I know when I do a design in InkScape, one shape has one line color. I can’t easily say “this line is this color”. I can always break that shape up into line segments, but it’s a pain in the neck to do so, and it has other negative consequences.
I’m wondering if there’s not an easier way to denote which lines need to move when resizing. Perhaps a layer above the cut layer that has lines that intersect the lines to resize (with 3 specific colors, one for right/bottom justify, one for left/top justify and one for center justify). Something like:
In essence, we are defining a standard for “parametizing” an svg file. I was really hoping that something like this already existed, and we did not have to define it ourselves.
I know a lot of people are saying: “just use Fusion 360 or some other tool that already has parametric designs”. That’s fine for making my own designs. I already do that.
But if I’m selling a design on the design store, I can’t assume that the person who is buying it has that same tool installed, knows how to use it, or has the time to figure it out. We want the store to be as easy as possible to use. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask customers to download and install Fusion 360, open the design, change the parameter, save the proper sketch as a dxf, open that sketch in Inkscape, resize it, color the lines we want to cut vs the lines we want to raster, etc. etc. etc. There are a LOT of steps between Fusion 360 and having a cut file that is usable.
I would much prefer to just put up an SVG file on the store, and have a quick GUI interface the user can use to adjusts the design for material width (or something that does it automatically if they are using proofgrade material).
An SVG file is just an XML file, so it should be possible to come up with a program that does this, given the right standards. I’d be happy with a program that will work for 99% of designs. Someone will always be able to make a design that will just not resize properly given our standards, but those are the edge cases.
Sorry for the long post.
Some things are made harder than they should be, and this seems like one of them.
At a certain point, I think one needs to say, this plan has been tested and is designed for this proof grade material at this thickness (since proofgrade materials will undergo QC). Measure your material before attempting to cut.
The impetus should be on the designer to not only design for different materials/weights but also test for different materials/weights if they want variations available. Further, I imagine compatibility will be guaranteed (or should be) for only proof grade materials.
The goal should be for a professional catalog - where every single design has been thoroughly tested by a designer before being offered for sale. If you want to offer a plywood, mdf, and acrylic version at 1/8" and 1/4", each variation (all 6!) should be tested by the designer on proofgrade materials before being offered for sale.
Different materials cut differently, kerf differs between materials and material thickness and all of those factors should be tested before offering a design for sale.
Just my 0.02.
Perhaps that is the best solution. As someone who wants to design for the design store, I’m exploring different avenues to offer the most flexibility to someone who buys my designs.
Imagine I post a design that I tested with just Plywood and I know it works with that material (like the chess set I posted here: Laser Cut Board Games).
Someone buys the designs, emails me, and asks “Will this work with Acrylic?”. What do I say?
None of those answers strike me as “user-friendly”. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask designers to test it with every single feasible material (unless they are on the GF payroll).
I can probably guess which materials are going to be popular, design for those, and offer different files for each of those materials. And that’s most likely what I’ll do at the start.
I’m just trying to figure out if there are tools out there that could make my life easier, and offer a better experience for users.
I get that - user friendly. I really do.
And user friendly, to me, is having a design that has been thoroughly tested on the mediums you intend to sell for.
In my mind, Glowforge is basically designing a stock library for laser cutters and as an artist, you’ll receive royalties. Think Getty, Shutterstock, or Adobe Stock. Not Etsy, where buyers can contact the seller and inquire about modifications, commissioned pieces, etc. Why compete with that huge platform?
Again, I surmise, but I feel like the goal here is world domination (hehe) - to have a Glowforge in a lab at every school and then in every home. Not just “makers” as we think of them now. People that want to buy a design that has been tested and with proofgrade material, will just work. So, for reputation stake, it’s important that designs are thoroughly tested and just work.
I feel like GF is investing very heavily in the material and proofgrade business because that’s the huge money maker of the business down the road (imo). Get us early adopters on board to start making and designing, and then go for every home and say hey, you don’t even have to design. We have the worlds largest catalogue of laser cut designs that are guaranteed to work on our material.
Likely, the hardware will be even cheaper in the future. Its hard to consistently make money on hardware when it’s already being cloned, or attempting to be cloned. The future is in the value of the design catalog and guaranteed proofgrade materials - I think.
Sorry, rambling a bit. 
I agree with what you say. I have a very similar vision of the GF store and proof-grade material. But I hesitate a little with this sentence:
because:
I think when a design us put on the store, the designer should say:
Well, you guys let me know what final standards are once everyone has decided on something.
If I were going to consider designing for the store, I would try to keep it very simple.
Then just make the file available as is. Those who have a minimum of knowledge will be able to re-work the file for their own use in other materials. (If you want to be nice about it we could decide on some standard like pink fill or stroke for parts that need to be targeted or something like that.)
In addition:
Once you see that there is interest in a particular file, you can do up several versions for the proofgrade materials to have them on hand if someone requests it down the road. But you will continue to recoup the additional fee for having to rework the file. (It’s not being greedy, it’s being smart. Your time is worth something, and designs tend to have a short shelf life.)
Unless the design has a mechanical element that depends on certain properties of a material (friction, water resistance, flexibility, strength) I cannot see what can possibly be gained by “testing” a design in a multitude of different materials.
“Cool acrylic coaster! What is that, 3mm? Would it work in 4mm?”
A picture frame designed with 1/8" acrylic in mind will probably function just fine as a picture frame if it’s cut out of 1/8" plywood. Asking a designer to “test” a “no solicitation” plaque in multiple thicknesses of acrylic, grades of leather, solid and ply wood, laserable vinyl, and stencil material will do little except waste designers’ time and discourage people from contributing.
@Hirudin : Do all designs need to be tested on all materials? Absolutely not. When tolerances are an issue - yes. If I’m paying money for a design and using proofgrade materials, I want it to work when I hit print. Therefore, designs with potential tolerance issues should be tested and variations of the file made available for different materials.
I have no idea how the catalog will be set up. None of us do. Maybe my thoughts on files being thoroughly tested before inclusion into the catalog is my ultimate vision of what the catalog will be: a stock library of laser designs… once we get past the early adopter stage, people are not going to want to finagle with designs. They are going to want to hit print and make their dinosaur head.
If your design is of a nature that it will/could fail due to a difference in material specs, it should only be sold for the materials it has been tested for - and then the proper file variant could be supplied that has already been tested.
Maybe I misunderstood the nature of this thread… if so, disregard.
I did the same thing with a design I did for box puzzles. I made something similar to these: https://www.puzzlemaster.ca/browse/novelty/foam/
Once I change a variable, it resizes all of the parts and then I output a SVG file from Solidowrks.
I know that does not work for people without that software, but just scaling didn’t work for me.
I still remember the day that @jacobturner schooled me on parametric design. I had just not done anything like that, especially in 3D modeling. I understand the facility of programs that have this function. As I have been working with my kitchen matchbox, I have thought about putting it into OnShape or Fusion360 but just am unwilling to start down that path yet. I just fiddle with it in Sketchup and put it into Inkscape. But I definitely need to design two different matchboxes, one to fit the Diamond Brand, which has a bigger box, and one to fit the generic Best Value matches that are smaller. Then I need to design the tabs to deal with different thicknesses of material. I think acrylic, baltic birch and walnut will all be great materials for this design. In the end I am better off learning the parametric program. But I can get Inkscape to resize the tabs as needed by changing the grid pattern size underneath and snapping to the new dimension to be able to accommodate different thicknesses of material.
This is a good discussion and is spurring me on to do some more design fiddling.
The Color Kludge to make SVG semi-parametric is intriguing, and could work out.
SVG are allowed to have text in the file, and that is ignored by the cutter (possibly not the same for Glowforge though, as being able to use text in an engrave file is more user friendly). In this case you would be able to use text to dictate if a color should be resized, and what type of justification to use.
However… maybe we can stop wondering if the shopper in the Catalog has the skill to make a cut file from a parametric model, and instead ask for the store itself to be able to do that.
This version of the catalog would work like this:
ask for the store itself to be able to do that
Yes please.
Instead of loading the Glowforge preview/cut app with features do it in the store!
It is still a very hard problem to solve, but at least it means that the results could be saved on an individual basis so the software does not need to calculate the parametric values each time.
I’d much rather have control in the interface than in the store. It will make tweaking our own designs easier.
@dan and team, to this point, have been great about asking for input and what is most important to us, the early adopters.
I know they also have a position listed for a designer (forgot exact title) in the Careers section of website so they probably already have some thoughts about this.
It’s definitely an endeavor whenever you’re selling usage licenses for things, so I’m excited to see what they come up with. Perhaps another thread should be started for catalog thoughts/opinions for those that want to design.
Word is, one way or another, Glowforges will have the ability to adjust values in designs based on material thickness.
The reply…
This would be fantastic if it becomes possible somewhere down the line. 
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to hang our hats on it being available right out of the gate though. We still don’t know what the necessary design parameters are. That function might be harder to code than other features.
(Certainly seems like it would be to me, but I’m no code expert. Maybe it’s an easy thing.)
I had a longer post written, but suffice it to say that one of the goals of Glowforge is to free users from needing to build up a “black book” of cut parameters in order to be able to produce accurate cuts in a variety of materials.
I believe that they can make it happen and assuming they do, I think multiple tests will be unnecessary for all but the most demanding designs.
My understanding of what is going to happen is that they will automate a lot of the functions for us, but I’m not sure that they can do this. Even though Dan said they could. (Sorry, dan! 
)
I’m not sure this one is completely do-able.
They should be able to:
So yes, that side of the “cut parameters” will be handled for us.
For designs that require a straight cut through the material, like drawings on paper with clearly delineated lines, I’m sure they have some kind of Auto-trace program. That’s going to yield acceptable results for most of the people who purchased this thing. (Depending on how good the trace program is, it might yield acceptable results for me too, but I doubt it. There is not a program in the world that can produce as good results with auto-trace as a human can doing it manually.)
I’m sure they are also working on some kind of scaled engraving program based on fill or color. In line with that, they will also have to hard code limits for the software, to prevent people from trying to engrave at improper speeds and power settings, to reduce the risk of flame up. Given how many materials there are, that would be a Herculean task, but it’s necessary from a safety standpoint.
Since they plan to keep control of the “preparation for cutting” process entirely within their software, they have got a huuuuuge job ahead to hit that December shipment. They need to test the software thoroughly, using the least informed users that they can find, just to make sure that they catch as many of the problems that real people are going to hit them with, that they would not necessarily have thought of, because they know what they are doing.
With a complete lack of political correctness, I call it the"Idiot Factor". 
You simply can’t foresee everything that less informed people are going to try to do, when you have any knowledge at all of how the system works. But with something like a laser, ignoring the IF could be catastrophic.
I’m sure they’re aware of all of these issues, so it’s been underway for a while. But because I know how much they have got going on, i wasn’t expecting something that is geared to help those few designers who plan to sell their work, who actually do know a little more about the process. It’s a much smaller subset of the whole. Re-sizing slots and things to help a few people sell their product more easily would be fantastic of course, but I’m just not sure that parametric functionality could feasibly be ready before the roll-out. Not unless it’s already been in the works from the beginning. There is still going to have to be some thought put into the design process by the designers, particularly if they are taking it 3D. I just don’t see a way around that.
It might be harder to get design submissions into the Catalog than most people think. The stuff that is going to sell that is thickness-sensitive, due to slots or spacing, is either going to have to be clearly limited to one specific material in the description, or someone is going to have to test it for other materials and re-work the design. Those who have parametric design software are going to have an easier time getting files put together for all the materials than those who don’t. Those who want to sell for just one material will limit the amount of customers they can reach. Or they will spend a lot of time reworking the file for other materials. Either way, it’s tough to make a buck selling files. (Been there, done that.)
Of course, I would be tickled pink to be proven wrong. I just wasn’t expecting that kind of ability up front.
It will be a delightful surprise if it happens. 
This whole thread has caused me to finally start learning Fusion 360.