Vent: alignment :(


#1

Come on proofgrade!


#2

At this time you should expect it to be less aligned in the extremes. So any corner is going to likely be least aligned of all.

Try directly under the camera and see how well it performs.


#3

I’ve had similar experiences. I expect this to improve as the software does in a few months. Right now I have to remember to take this sort of behavior into account when thinking through design and assembly workflows.

I wish I had better news for you.


#4

Yes. I should have stated that as well. This is only a temporary issue. However, it is unknown at what point we should expect it to be resolved to any degree.


#6

chrome.

I know this is within spec and the software is in beta, I just needed to complain and vent about it doesn’t really effect my output, just creates a lot more wasted material / money.


#8

That’s a bite to not have a design go where you need it to for material conservation and utilization. Keep working on it. Getting used to art placement in relation to the material and placing the material for optimal use gets better and has been improving. I expect it to continue to improve. And sometimes a design comes out at an in-opportune place on the material and I can’t figure it out. Most of the time I can place stuff within an 1/8 inch.


#9

There have been a number of hints at significant improvements coming related to camera alignment. Including this one yesterday.


#10

Are you saying that different browsers yield different results on the Glowforge even when you are using the same design?

Safari is my primary browser.


#12

There is/was a bug where zooming in on the image caused the preview to shift on Safari. There is/was also a bug where you couldn’t reorder operations by dragging them around in the list on the left side of the window. I don’t know whether either of them has been fixed. (It sure would be nice to have a comprehensive set of release notes for the GF UI, including user-visible bug fixes.)


#13

It doesn’t look like the head camera is ever going to get used for alignment. I wonder if the resolution is too poor.


#14

I don’t recall reading that anywhere. Do you happen to remember when they said that?


#15

The only reference I found to the head camera is that it is one of two cameras used to align the head and materials. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a reference to us having an interface to it so we can utilize the head camera through the GUI.

Maybe it’s just not a thing.


#16

I tried asking about the head camera being used for registration over here… A response was given.


#17

I haven’t read all the comments here so forgive me if it’s been mentioned. Yes, the alignment issue seriously needs to be fixed, but don’t be afraid when you are doing multiple operations on the same uploaded file. (Such as wanting to make another engraving pass.) The alignment looks off after the first operation, but in my experience the files will still align and cut correctly in subsequent passes. (Obviously you can’t move anything on the bed.) Just wanted to make sure you knew that as I wasted a few projects before I realized it :slight_smile:


#18

No because you can see it is off in the camera image. Obviously resolution decreases in the corners but it should still be good enough to place you design on the material to within a camera pixel.


#19

I was referring to the resolution of the head camera, not the lid camera.


#20

Again, any Official mention of the head camera being utilized by the operator for cut/engrave alignment is either intentionally avoided, or not spoken of.

Either, they can’t, or won’t.

Maybe it’s something they can implement later if they can’t get the lid camera to work properly, unlike not putting limit switches in to correct wandering head alignment issues.


#21

Sorry.

The head camera has much better optical resolution over a smaller area. It may have less pixels in total but certainly the claimed resolution was better than the lid camera in the corners:

Able to view one square inch with resolution of 0.002” (0.05mm)

However, like a lot of things, this has been removed from the technical specs.


#22

Well, that ought to be workable. I wonder why it seems like they don’t seem to be planning on using it.


#23

I think it is planned for pass through alignment and doubled sided cutting but it would be a bit clumsy positioning your artwork using a 1" peep-hole view unless it happened to be smaller than 1".