I am a bit dumbfounded that we can purchase Pro Pass through material without the functional software to support the pass through slot on larger cuts. Rather we have to train ourselves to manually align everything and hope we dont mess up the proofgrade material.
Seems like a case of the cart before the horse…
I have the pro, but i have not had time to learn how to do the larger cuts manually, which is frustrating!! I was hoping the software would be released soon…
Chicken and egg. An optimist might hope that the availability of large material could indicate the pass thru S/W is coming. A realist would say I’m stuck with manual alignment for now but at least I can try it with larger material. What is someone who says both is bad?
re: breaking up into chunks - I questioned earlier about how would you determine a path that might be defined by nodes outside of the “print” area, but that was for current-state GFUI and manual edits. It actually would be fairly simple to “mask” the print via software so that it only used the workable area, but still accounted for the details outside of that area.
I’ve got a little background in graphics software design involving vector-defined paths, and had to solve this exact problem when I “adapted” Asteroids for a raster-based video game system.
Will bet you $5 that once the pass thru S/W is released as working (not a Beta version 0.23) we won’t have to break up the image. No bets on how well things will work or precision but breaking up the design automatically is a basic requirement. They know that.
I call again for “beta - dot - glowforge - dot - com” to let us test some more bleeding edge features. I’ll sign a waiver that says “it’s on me if I burn my glowforge up or waste materials” if it gets me access to a new/better UI, etc.
(Edited to make it so it didn’t think it was a real address)
I vaguely recall seeing somewhere in the last year a craft-y tool that required the use of a special grid-covered tape that you would stick to your project and it allowed the tool to track where it was as things moved around. I remember I thought it was kind of cool; I don’t actually remember what kind of machine it was or what craft it helped with.
But it was cool.
Anyway, my sad inability to remember anything aside, my bet is that if they come up with a solution to handle long cuts without forcing you to break up your image, it will have to use some sort of optical aid like that.
I’ll let you all know if I rediscover it.
I don’t understand why. Engraves are totally a left/right process and then you skip to the next line. If the GF does the entire motion path for an image then the only difficult part is aligning a first and last left right scan each time you push the material thru the slot a little further.
The cuts are more difficult because the S/W has to create a new start stop point for any vector that crosses the break point.
Whether we use clip paths or not is no more important to those processes than now. (It would be easier if I provided diagrams but really not that motivated.)
Clipping paths moreso to handle the cutting aspect/breaking vectors apart.
Software clips at the bottom of the engraveable area (which is a moving target). But since the clip path is defined from a coordinate perspective, it knows exactly where to move the remainder of the file up, and then clip that design from the top and if needed, bottom.
Same thing with a raster. Clip paths make an easily definable area for the software to do its thing automatically.
Understand what you are saying but I think our disconnect is that when folks talk about clip paths here they are normally discussing how it is implemented within 2D S/W packages and how GF interpets a standard. GF might do something similar to clip paths to solve the pass thru problem but it really has nothing to do with them implementing clip paths from AI or other 2D packages.
Obviously my opinion or guesswork. So feel free to disagree.