Note that we do not document nor recommend the use of manual settings, although of course you’re welcome to experiment.
I read that to mean that if you use manual settings they’re not guaranteeing results, so they’re encouraging people to use the ProofGrade settings because that’s what they can support (known material, etc.). Clearly they document the existence of manual settings, and they fix bugs in the manual settings, etc., and they’re not saying not to use manual settings, just that they can’t stand behind the results because you’re not using their recommended settings. That’s reasonable.
There’s definitely an element of two sides intentionally talking past each other. Glowforge doesn’t want to be in the position of providing support, as in helping people get their manual settings to work, or dealing with problems that are caused by using incorrect settings. They have some control over what the Proofgrade settings are, so they want to do all of their troubleshooting using Proofgrade materials and automatic settings. You can use manual settings, but you’re on your own. That makes sense up to a point. The issue is that it doesn’t address two things: one is what happens when there’s a legitimate problem with the manual settings. What if power levels 15-32 leak coolant due to a bug in the software? You’re on your own? The second concern is what we’ve seen in a few instances, where a problem is encountered that clearly has nothing to do with the settings or the material being used. Like if the front fell off. “Please test with Proofgrade” really irritates some people when you can blatantly see that the front fell off and 20 inches of plywood fell onto the floor and caught fire. These thing should be built so the front doesn’t fall off at all, regardless of settings.
I had a point there but I seem to have lost it. Anyway, it doesn’t matter whether it’s real, the threat is real.
Have reported maybe 50 problems/issues to Support over 9 months of using the PRU. Support has asked me to print on Proofgrade once. It was a cut through issue that never reoccurred. There is usually common sense in what they ask.
That seems a very odd interpretation of English to me. It definitely means “we prefer you don’t use them” to me and I am a native English speaker from England. Just like shipping means to hand over to a courier. I know you have your own language in the US that isn’t English because it has different words, spelling and pronunciation but it is also starting to appear it has different comprehension rules as well.
Not documenting what they do in a manual for an $8000 machine is pretty much unheard of as well I think.
I don’t think this about Support. I do think they work very hard.
It’s about a product that is billed as being user friendly that has a set of very prominent features that are alien to their target audience (unskilled, inexperienced laser users).
Then they don’t document or even tell you what those features do. It’s left up to the user community to figure it out.
That’s a little silly. At they could explain what those functions do, and then say “You’re on own with the results, though, because they will be too varied for us to reasonably support them.”
It isn’t my personal interpretation. When you say to somebody “I don’t recommend that you do x” in English that means “I don’t think you should do it”. At least it does in England.
I have had decent results taping the edges of the wood to the crumb tray to flatten out BB. Haven’t found magnets yet that are strong enough, and I have some that I have to hook a tool into to remove from my metal door.
I’ll be honest with you. Don’t enjoy arguing with you because there is never a resolution and it’s not my preferred method of gaining knowledge. I’ve been told it’s often a regional thing on how folks are taught to interact with each other.
As Dan is as official a source on recommendations as one can get, would you be opposed to the following interpretation:
“I don’t (officially) recommend you do x.”
(officially) being derived from both his CEO status and from the last part of the statement of “although of course you’re welcome to experiment.”
Does that convey a “wink wink nudge nudge” that some of us seem to understand?
While you’re right in casual conversation, Speaking precisely, which is what Dan is doing, “I don’t recommend that you do X” does not mean the same thing as “I recommend that you not do X”, because not recommending X is different from recommending against X.
In other discussions, Dan’s elaborated that when you use manual settings Glowforge can’t support the results of the cut, because they only tested proofgrade material and settings. But clearly the manual settings are a supported capability of the Glowforge printer - it’s in the manual, it’s in the software, etc., etc. But, just as with any laser cutter from any manufacturer, if you use the manual settings to start a fire and burn your house down, Glowforge won’t take responsibility for that. And if you can’t figure out settings to cut non-proofgrade material, Glowforge isn’t going to help you figure that out. That’s the same as for any other laser cutter that I am aware of - none that I am aware of many any promises about whether your manual configuration of the laser cutter will do what you want vs burn your house down.
I think the issue mainly is that Glowforge is selling to consumers. When you sell a laser cutter to a business, you generally don’t need to tell them that if they use the tool incorrectly you could hurt yourself, waste material, etc., because that’s how all powerful tools work.
Glowforge has obviously taken many steps to facilitate the use of non-Proofgrade material so they crearly do not have a hardline “use Proofgrade or you’re on your own, bub” policy.
Though, I can vaguely recall a couple instances of Support asking users to try Proofgrade material when it didn’t seem like it had any chance of changing the situation.
We need to be able to see the forest through the trees.
I don’t think I read the topic that that “we do not recommend… manual settings” quote came from but a quick skim through the messages that that reply was made to suggests that it relies on the context of the conversation so can’t be correctly interpreted by itself.
When I quoted @dan earlier in this thread, I provided the direct link to original thread as well. The reason I did that is because of the original context.
It was in response to user directly asking 2 questions about manual settings.
Here for those that don’t want to scroll, and here is where @dan chimed in.
@dan doesn’t directly answer the questions, and then blabs on about Proofgrade.
This is not a case of selective quoting to control a narrative. It’s simply letting the narrative come from the source.
No that is false logic. Not recommending X is certainly different from recommending against X but not recommending X is not the same as saying “I don’t recommend X”. Not recommending could mean you simply don’t mention it.
If you can either do X or not do X and somebody says “I don’t recommend you do X” then that means exactly the same as “I recommend you don’t do X” because there are only two possibilities and you advised against one.