Why don't Chinese lasers use printer drivers?

[Ross Moshinsky]

I like to stay clued in so I've been looking into Chinese laser systems since they seem to become more and more popular, especially since Rodne went to China.

My biggest question is, why don't they just develop a print driver? It seems like it would make everyone's life a bit simpler.

[Rodne Gold]

They get the software from the laser control mainboard mnfgrs so take what they can get or what the card mnfgrs use (costs the laser mnfgrs nada for software) - yes a Corel based print driver would be "better" for existing corel/acad/legacy files but it would require "development" and require amendment when the control card is replaced with a newer/cheaper/easier to work one. The laser mnfgrs in China do not develop their own mainboards..they buy em in. It's way better for consumers as upgrades are actually real cheap , round $400 for a new motherboard and LCD panel (the 2 normally go together) and thus one is not reliant on a specific laser mnfgrs card and can easily use any of the systems and software on the market if one wishes as most can be used in any chassis and with any tube or motion system.
At the end of it all , "better" is relative , using a print drivers properties to design in corel etc is actually a "lazy" way and does not allow the design to be used in some other processes.
For EG , most chinese lasers will NOT raster a line with width , they see it is a "vector" line , but a line with width is problematic for a lot of other machinery , like a CnC mill/router or vinyl cutter etc as they too can't do this or use the Corel drawing , a line with width should actually be a closed filled bounded entity for it to be TRULY portable.
I actually prefer the chinese way , we design in Corel and export and can do more in the software they provide than in corel in many ways , like change cut paths , create lead ins and lead outs and a lot of other stuff besides. My low level staff have less issues using the chinese lasers than my mainstreams. the same Corel drawing can also be used on my many other machines without re designing which we have to do if we try use a mainstream "laserable" file designed for the print driver.

[Ross Moshinsky]

Rodney,

The issue with their current method is that it's limited to Corel or AutoCad when people use Illustrator, Inkscape, and several other programs. At times I've sent a job straight to the laser from a customer provided PDF. There is also a big issue with their method because although they don't have to worry about changes when the board changes, they have to worry about when Corel or AutoCad update. In the end the printer driver is a much more user friendly way which is why it's been used by all major laser manufacturers for years.

As for the Chinese way. We use Gravostyle and it's very much the "Chinese" way and I promise, it's full of flaws. It's especially bad with artwork. If a customer provides layered, complicated artwork in vector form, it will import in TERRIBLY. It will take 30 minutes to get it compatible with the software vs just running it straight from a graphics program. There is also a major issue with color and gradients. Completely takes away the ability to do any of that type of work easily and efficiently. So then you're stuck creating a raster image from a vector image. The Chinese software I'm sure can't change the artboard from 72dpi to 300 or 600dpi so you're ending up with issues there.

I've seen the pros and cons of both. The ability to do it both ways is key. Provide the free software, but also make it easy for people to keep doing it the way they have for years and years. I can't imagine programming a driver would cost more than a couple thousand dollars and they'd make that money back quickly even if they sold it as an add on feature for $100-200.

[Zvi Grinberg]

Rodney,

I would like to contribute to the discussion, but it is important to make it clear to every one in this forum, that I am a Universal Lasers distributor in Israel. Please refer to this as a legit professional opinion, and in any case since the presence of my customers here is very rare, I gain no direct benefit from posting here.

I find it discouraging that there is no real developer of chinese lasers. From Rodney's post I learn that every machine is assembled by a different integrator in different ways. There is no "father" to the development and no wonder that in such an environment it will be hard to find dedication in advancing the interface.


The laser mnfgrs in China do not develop their own mainboards..they buy em in. It's way better for consumers as upgrades are actually real cheap , round $400 for a new motherboard and LCD panel (the 2 normally go together) and thus one is not reliant on a specific laser mnfgrs card and can easily use any of the systems and software on the market if one wishes as most can be used in any chassis and with any tube or motion system.

ULS architecture has a much better (IMHO) approach. Controllers are the same for each series, and the Universal Control Panel (that Print Driver software and job manager) works with all series. That means that each enhamcements automatically reach ALL machines in field, no matter how old they are. This is an architecture that ensures the customer that his/hers machine is being constantly developed and maintains value.

Another fact is that the CPU is not more that 400-500 dollars to replace for most series. Just like the chinese...



I actually prefer the chinese way , we design in Corel and export and can do more in the software they provide than in corel in many ways , like change cut paths , create lead ins and lead outs and a lot of other stuff besides. My low level staff have less issues using the chinese lasers than my mainstreams. the same Corel drawing can also be used on my many other machines without re designing which we have to do if we try use a mainstream "laserable" file designed for the print driver.

Corel files are portable and should remain so. If you have variety of machines this is the best way to reduce overhead and management in your business. And in cases such as Rodney's there could be even more than one "version" of chinese machines - a fact that one has to value in time and money.

Univesal as an example can take a thin line and allows you to consider it as either raster or vector. Giving you the flexibility beyond Corel or any other application. UCP also allows for relocation and duplication of geometry in ready jobs (without having to return to Corel/ACAD).

In the Universal way, you do not send any data to the machine. Everything is stored in your host PC. The machine has no internal memory and is directly operated from the PC.
When you upgrade your PC you actually upgrade the machine. You don't have to deal with old memory chips, CPU's and aged electronics that in time tend to be obsolete and force you to make dramatic changes to the way you work (or dump too old machines).

Again, please don't forget that I am a ULS distributor.
I may be biased but at the same time I have and share good experience that might be valuable for you.

Zvi

[Rodne Gold]

Well , none of my "printer driver" laser files are actually portable to other machines , not even other lasers. They are designed SPECIFICALLY for the driver I am using on my GCC's and do not work with my CnC overhead router , vinyl cutter, digital printer without some modification. It's not much of a mission to adapt a design file to whatever machine you are using it on and then get output. My CnC router works with signlab/profilelab , my cutters work with Corel and a Roland driver, my digital printers also use a Wasatch RIP to output. My small Roland engravers us Dr Engrave and My older ISEL engraving machines work with Autocad and a custom driver I wrote..So we used to messing with Corel or other drawing files to get the right output.
Even on my GCC's , firmware changes often as do drivers , we have to adapt to changes when this happens ...

Not sure why this is such an issue.. You will only get true compatibility and transportability if you use the same type of machine with the same driver. so you have the choice , continue with your original workflow with no issues and buy a high priced machine to do so , or save a bundle but have a slightly more difficult workflow or workarounds to make it the "same" as what you got --- up to you!!!
Just an aside: The suppliers of my 2 chinese machines upgraded their motherboards to newer and better versions , they sent me 3 mother boards and 3 lcd panels for free a month after I bought (2 for machines , 1 for spare) , was a snap to change em , update the software etc. all I had to do was send the old ones back , which cost me $100.
The problem really is that the Chinese machines are pretty much not a plug and play newbie friendly machine , but they are in the "affordable" bracket for newbies , but if you want to enter the engraving/lasering field , you need SOME hands on ability. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

[Ernie Balch]

My new Rabbit laser allows printing directly from both Autocad and Corel. It also has it's own drawing program that exports to the laser. I have been designing in Corel and exporting DXF and raster files to the laser drawing program where I set up the parameters. I will have to look at trying the printer drivers with Corel.

ernie

[Dan Hintz]

I find it discouraging that there is no real developer of chinese lasers. From Rodney's post I learn that every machine is assembled by a different integrator in different ways. There is no "father" to the development and no wonder that in such an environment it will be hard to find dedication in advancing the interface.
Zvi,

This does not surprise me in the least. With copyright laws being practically non-existent (or unenforced) in China, there's little reason to innovate. The moment one person comes up with a good idea, someone is around the block making a copy a week later.


ULS architecture has a much better (IMHO) approach. Controllers are the same for each series, and the Universal Control Panel (that Print Driver software and job manager) works with all series. That means that each enhamcements automatically reach ALL machines in field, no matter how old they are. This is an architecture that ensures the customer that his/hers machine is being constantly developed and maintains value.
This is not completely correct, at least as far as I'm aware (so feel free to correct me on this one). While the majority of the parts are shared between the various machines, older machines are eventually set out to pasture and no longer receive the same updates to the driver as the more current machines. I have no objection to this, just pointing out an inaccuracy.


Another fact is that the CPU is not more that 400-500 dollars to replace for most series. Just like the chinese...
Agreed... though I would say that replacing the motherboard and front panel LCD on a Chinese machine gives you a (practically) entirely new machine. With the Western systems (ULS, Epilog, etc.), there are more PCB. For example, there are three boards in my machine that are simply for motor control. Then you have the motherboard. Then you have a couple of PCBs scattered near the motors themselves and the sensors. then you have the PCBs in the laser cartridge. And so on. Replacing them all can get expensive, especially if you're hunting for a problem.


In the Universal way, you do not send any data to the machine. Everything is stored in your host PC. The machine has no internal memory and is directly operated from the PC.
When you upgrade your PC you actually upgrade the machine. You don't have to deal with old memory chips, CPU's and aged electronics that in time tend to be obsolete and force you to make dramatic changes to the way you work (or dump too old machines).
I may upgrade the PC, but I am in no way upgrading the laser. I know this is the line ULS likes to use when comparing themselves against competitors that use on-board memory (e.g., Epilog), but it's simply marketing and no more. My laser does not any work faster with a top of the line computer than if I was using Windows 2000 on an old Pentium. It either works or it doesn't. Sure, an on-board memory chip might fail on a laser's motherboard, but so could any of the other chips... it's simply a repair that needs to happen, and I can guarantee a SIMM will be cheaper to replace even 10-15 years from now than a failing motherboard in the laser. Again, I have no real complaint about on-board versus off-board memory, just pointing out a flaw in the argument.

Dan (a happy ULS owner)

[Ross Moshinsky]

Well , none of my "printer driver" laser files are actually portable to other machines , not even other lasers. They are designed SPECIFICALLY for the driver I am using on my GCC's and do not work with my CnC overhead router , vinyl cutter, digital printer without some modification. It's not much of a mission to adapt a design file to whatever machine you are using it on and then get output. My CnC router works with signlab/profilelab , my cutters work with Corel and a Roland driver, my digital printers also use a Wasatch RIP to output. My small Roland engravers us Dr Engrave and My older ISEL engraving machines work with Autocad and a custom driver I wrote..So we used to messing with Corel or other drawing files to get the right output.
Even on my GCC's , firmware changes often as do drivers , we have to adapt to changes when this happens ...

Not sure why this is such an issue.. You will only get true compatibility and transportability if you use the same type of machine with the same driver. so you have the choice , continue with your original workflow with no issues and buy a high priced machine to do so , or save a bundle but have a slightly more difficult workflow or workarounds to make it the "same" as what you got --- up to you!!!
Just an aside: The suppliers of my 2 chinese machines upgraded their motherboards to newer and better versions , they sent me 3 mother boards and 3 lcd panels for free a month after I bought (2 for machines , 1 for spare) , was a snap to change em , update the software etc. all I had to do was send the old ones back , which cost me $100.
The problem really is that the Chinese machines are pretty much not a plug and play newbie friendly machine , but they are in the "affordable" bracket for newbies , but if you want to enter the engraving/lasering field , you need SOME hands on ability. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

My real issue is, I wouldn't have to work around anything if the manufacturers spent what would amount to probably $1000 to develop a print driver.

Can I work around and use this Laserworks software? Sure. I just don't understand why we should when developing a driver wouldn't cost much.

[Dan Hintz]

My real issue is, I wouldn't have to work around anything if the manufacturers spent what would amount to probably $1000 to develop a print driver.
To be fair (as a software/hardware developer), I wouldn't bother booting my computer for $1k. Driver development is not a weekend warrior affair.

[Lee DeRaud]

To be fair (as a software/hardware developer), I wouldn't bother booting my computer for $1k. Driver development is not a weekend warrior affair.I hear where you're coming from. But they've already done the hardware interface/control, which is the hard part of the equation. Getting the existing chunk to talk to the OS gracefully isn't rocket science.

[Kevin Huffman]

My real issue is, I wouldn't have to work around anything if the manufacturers spent what would amount to probably $1000 to develop a print driver.

It's cheaper and easier to make 1 software compatible with a machine by including the driver in the program. Then it is to make a windows printer driver that is compatible with ANY software. Because then you add in all these "home grown" version of auto cad or 1 of the 1,000,000 different free ware programs, it's much tougher to keep up a driver that works with all of them.

[Ross Moshinsky]

To be fair (as a software/hardware developer), I wouldn't bother booting my computer for $1k. Driver development is not a weekend warrior affair.

We aren't talking about US labor. We are talking about Chinese labor. Not to mention, we are talking about companies that should have a couple software people on staff. Assuming they make about $15 an hour, I have a hard time believing it would take them more than 67 hours to complete. I bet Laserworks took 10x as much programming time and they give that away for free.


It's cheaper and easier to make 1 software compatible with a machine by including the driver in the program. Then it is to make a windows printer driver that is compatible with ANY software. Because then you add in all these "home grown" version of auto cad or 1 of the 1,000,000 different free ware programs, it's much tougher to keep up a driver that works with all of them.

Are you suggesting making a program like LaserWorks is less work than making a printer driver? I think if that was the case, Epilog and Universal would have done it 10 years ago. That way they can keep you under their thumb easier. By using Corel, you can easily switch from an Epilog to a Universal without any real issues.

As for compatibility; every other US/EU laser company has dealt with the compatibility issues using printer drivers. The great thing about printer drivers is it doesn't take much to keep up to date. Think about your average printer. You plug it in, install the driver, and you're done. Every once in a while you might update the firmware or driver. If you install a new version of Corel, you don't have to get a new printer driver. It all works great. The only time you have to worry about it is when there is a new OS coming out and that only happens about every 3-5 years with Windows. It takes plenty of work getting LaserWorks updated for the new OS, so I can't see how a printer driver is more work.

In the end, LaserWorks looks like a fine piece of software if you're starting a new business with a laser engraver. You don't even really need Corel. You could probably get away with just Inkscape and LaserWorks. As we all know, operating the laser is the easiest part. The design and execution is where things get far more difficult. To essentially force customers into learning a new piece of software just seems a unnecessary when a "simple" printer driver could resolve almost everything.

[Zvi Grinberg]

This is not completely correct, at least as far as I'm aware (so feel free to correct me on this one). While the majority of the parts are shared between the various machines, older machines are eventually set out to pasture and no longer receive the same updates to the driver as the more current machines. I have no objection to this, just pointing out an inaccuracy.

It eventually evolved much closer to my description.
Old series (M V X) had the old generation architecture (CPU, memory etc). Now all new series (since 2007) are using the external resource architecture. VLS series (VLS despktop and platforms) even have a common CPU board. PLS has a different CPU with separate drivers for X, Y and Z, but again they do not cost much as well. The bottom line is that all ULS machines use the same architecture and same control software which is also the printer driver. You should know how much progress has been made over the years. Your own PLS machine actually received a dozen or two of significant enhancements without moving a screwdriver or paying for new hardware.


I may upgrade the PC, but I am in no way upgrading the laser. I know this is the line ULS likes to use when comparing themselves against competitors that use on-board memory (e.g., Epilog), but it's simply marketing and no more. My laser does not any work faster with a top of the line computer than if I was using Windows 2000 on an old Pentium. It either works or it doesn't. Sure, an on-board memory chip might fail on a laser's motherboard, but so could any of the other chips... it's simply a repair that needs to happen, and I can guarantee a SIMM will be cheaper to replace even 10-15 years from now than a failing motherboard in the laser. Again, I have no real complaint about on-board versus off-board memory, just pointing out a flaw in the argument.

It's not just marketing. You can now process much more complex graphics at faster pace, you can use it with new operating systems, and when you buy a new PC with 64 bits and faster memory, some of the tasks in preprocessing takes much les times.
Today I can already see that memory chips for old X series machine cost more.
Not to mention that old machine CPU boards could handle limited amount of memory and the user is limited in how much he can squeeze into his laser machine. Think of a very large area - greyscale bitmap. Whereas with ULS method, you are just indifferent. You keep storing as many jobs as you are willing to, you just click and it runs the machine (no delay while transferring job files to laser).
This is in my book enhancement of the laser system, without even opening a lid of the machine.

I am sure that owners of chinese machines are happy with their equipment as well. But when I see them using it, without debating on other aspects, I see that their workflow has too many steps and the overhead for creating and/or running a job (two different tasks, FWIW) is significantly higher.

Zvi

[Ross Moshinsky]

I don't pay much attention to Universal but that method sounds like a terrible idea. Streaming is one of the most inconsistent ways to deal with information. What if there is a signal interruption? What if the computer freezes? What if I start watching a HD movie and it starts eating computer resources?

The best thing about a laser with on-board memory is, once it's sent over, the computer could literally be disconnected and it wouldn't matter. Considering a laser is only doing one thing and my PC while idling is doing 60, I'd pick on board memory every time. I wouldn't touch a laser that streamed the information if you paid me. One crash while running an expensive award or something one of a kind and it could cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

[Zvi Grinberg]

We aren't talking about US labor. We are talking about Chinese labor. Not to mention, we are talking about companies that should have a couple software people on staff. Assuming they make about $15 an hour, I have a hard time believing it would take them more than 67 hours to complete. I bet Laserworks took 10x as much programming time and they give that away for free.

I'm afraid you are under estimating the task, and over estimating the potential quality of the outcome. These are ends that never meet.

Programmers's job is never done. You write 90% of the software in 10% of the time, and the rest 10% of the software takes forever.
If you hire 15$ hour programmers you will get 15$ value of software. If you allocate budget for 67 hours or 1000$to fulfill the job you would get exactly what you paid for.

No long term commitment, no vision, no dedication - is a waste of resources for such products.

[Ross Moshinsky]

I'm afraid you are under estimating the task, and over estimating the potential quality of the outcome. These are ends that never meet.

Programmers's job is never done. You write 90% of the software in 10% of the time, and the rest 10% of the software takes forever.
If you hire 15$ hour programmers you will get 15$ value of software. If you allocate budget for 67 hours or 1000$to fulfill the job you would get exactly what you paid for.

No long term commitment, no vision, no dedication - is a waste of resources for such products.

$15/hr x 40 x 50 = $30,000. That's 3x the national average. That's the equivalent of someone in the US making roughly $150,000 a year.

Considering the Chinese are making lasers for $5000 comparable to lasers Universal charges $20,000 for clearly illustrates the difference in economic needs in China vs the other 1st world countries of the world.

[Zvi Grinberg]

Well , none of my "printer driver" laser files are actually portable to other machines , not even other lasers. They are designed SPECIFICALLY for the driver I am using on my GCC's ...Even on my GCC's , firmware changes often as do drivers , we have to adapt to changes when this happens ...

This is exactly my point. If you bought a ULS in 2007, ALL versions of the drivers which were actually enhanced over the years - can take your old jobs and flawlessly process them.

I did not refer to using the job with irrelevant machines (CNC etc)


Not sure why this is such an issue.. ...
...Just an aside: The suppliers of my 2 chinese machines upgraded their motherboards to newer and better versions , they sent me 3 mother boards and 3 lcd panels for free a month after I bought (2 for machines , 1 for spare) , was a snap to change em , update the software etc. all I had to do was send the old ones back , which cost me $100

And if yet another supplier arrives with even better boards and drivers, you wold have to swap everything all over again. Including the software and therefore your workflow.


The problem really is that the Chinese machines are pretty much not a plug and play newbie friendly machine , but they are in the "affordable" bracket for newbies , but if you want to enter the engraving/lasering field , you need SOME hands on ability. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

I rest my case.

[Zvi Grinberg]

Considering the Chinese are making lasers for $5000 comparable to lasers Universal charges $20,000 for clearly illustrates the difference in economic needs in China vs the other 1st world countries of the world.

You can find even cheaper than that in China.
Still there is no apparent way how and when you would get an easier and friendlier software/user interface/driver. If it was a car you would not buy it.

[Ross Moshinsky]

You can find even cheaper than that in China.
Still there is no apparent way how and when you would get an easier and friendlier software/user interface/driver. If it was a car you would not buy it.

Sounds like the same thing people said about Honda's in the 1970s. Even using your car example, I don't drive around in a S Class Mercedes. Does that mean my Mazda doesn't get me where I need to go?

[Dan Hintz]

Considering the Chinese are making lasers for $5000 comparable to lasers Universal charges $20,000 for...
I wouldn't make that kind of comparison... but I feel this thread is heading in a "personal feeling" direction, so I'll bow out now.

[Zvi Grinberg]

One should make a choice between a system that is continuously being developed and enhanced for many years to come, and DIY machinery.

ULS system (with the connected PC's) are reliable at least as the no name control boards with who knows 1,000 bucks development interface software which are attached to I don't know who built this hardware. Now you see me, now you don't, development "team".

Many of the users I know work on their PC's, preparing additional jobs or editing data, while the machine is working.
Here at our office we also demonstrate 3D printers. We frequently operate a 3D printing job and demonstrate the laser at the same time. 3D printing is a very demanding process that takes many hours to run. In a trade show last year, we operated two 3D printers, each for a day length job, and demonstrated the laser from same notebook. I would not recommend this setup to my customers, but there are space contraints in trade shows.

And if I had a very precious award to process, I don't know any reasonable operator that would care to start watching HD movie right at that time, right at that place. I need to see the first employer who would allow such or similar habbits. Not that it would not work.

[john banks]

Open sourcing it would probably get it done, but Leetro who make the commonly used MCP6515 would have to allow access to their Lasercut source code to let people write stuff for it. Reverse engineering is another possibility but you have to be careful legally. A smart manufacturer could do very well and get a whole "mod" scene around their controllers, like happens with automotive ECUs, routers, cell phones etc.

[john banks]

Do Universal hold the single job in the controller's memory or does it rely on the PC to be connected for the entire job?

I would not underestimate even cheap embedded microcontrollers and their ability to control a job with precision and efficient code especially with hardware timers, latching, interrupts, buffered values etc. Some of the time critical code I deal with on microcontrollers (running engines) couldn't (easily/fire and forget/mission critical) be implemented on an average but ludicrously overpowered PC running Windows despite the processing power being orders of magnitude higher. Some open source CNC controller software uses a realtime Linux kernel for this reason. PCs running Windows are rarely suitable for precise timing control without a microcontroller running the actual job and the PC just dumping instructions to it. Too many things outside the software author's control - virus scanners, other software autoupdating, viruses, stupid users, enforced restarts, other buggy software etc.

[Lee DeRaud]

I don't pay much attention to Universal but that method sounds like a terrible idea. Streaming is one of the most inconsistent ways to deal with information. What if there is a signal interruption? What if the computer freezes? What if I start watching a HD movie and it starts eating computer resources?Seriously? There is a vast difference between streaming a movie over the internet vs transmitting a print job piecemeal over a USB cable. If nothing else, the laser is actually quite tolerant of interruptions to its communication flow for any packet size larger than a scan line, something that cannot be said of music or video.

(Note that the interface method ULS uses is virtually identical to that used by every inkjet printer on the planet.)

[Lee DeRaud]

Do Universal hold the single job in the controller's memory or does it rely on the PC to be connected for the entire job?

I would not underestimate even cheap embedded microcontrollers and their ability to control a job with precision and efficient code especially with hardware timers, latching, interrupts, buffered values etc. Some of the time critical code I deal with on microcontrollers (running engines) couldn't (easily/fire and forget/mission critical) be implemented on an average but ludicrously overpowered PC running Windows despite the processing power being orders of magnitude higher. Some open source CNC controller software uses a realtime Linux kernel for this reason. PCs running Windows are rarely suitable for precise timing control without a microcontroller running the actual job and the PC just dumping instructions to it. Too many things outside the software author's control - virus scanners, other software autoupdating, viruses, stupid users, enforced restarts, other buggy software etc.There seems to be a misconception here: yes, the ULS setup requires the computer to be connected to the laser for the entire job.

But no, the computer is not, repeat NOT, controlling the laser at the realtime hardware level, it is merely transmitting the job in discrete chunks (eg vector endpoints and raster scan lines) to the microcontroller on the laser.

[Dan Hintz]

PCs running Windows are never suitable for precise timing control without a microcontroller running the actual job and the PC just dumping instructions to it. Too many things outside the software author's control - virus scanners, other software autoupdating, viruses, stupid users, enforced restarts, other buggy software etc.
Fixed that for ya...

Windows is simply not designed to be an RTOS, so other software running in the background isn't the problem. There's no direct way to get a timeslice small enough in Windows to appear real-time to the user, and direct hardware interrupt is a no-go.

[john banks]

I wrote "never" and changed it to "rarely" as you can be sure someone will claim they have realtime running on Windows ;) Now they can argue with you instead of me :) I do believe you COULD do a pretty good job of controlling a laser at the realtime hardware level but you'd have to use native code and waste a lot of processsing cycles with a high priority task (after all you can emulate in software a much lower power microcontroller's hardware interrupts and do a pretty good job), and there is still a probability (you may edit to "certainty" if you like) of glitches compared to a microcontroller of less than 1% of the outright processing power, but Lee has confirmed what I suspected that none of this is the issue anyway, it is user convenience and supposed portability of a printer driver.

There are some interesting open source printer driver projects out there, but I see the main roadblock is the closed source info on the controller protocols.

These Chinese plug - ins to Coreldraw etc, do they use VBA? Presumably Lasercut or similar just gets executed and the file name is a parameter? It goes through a dxf or similar file on the disk though rather than a page control language?

[Dan Hintz]

These Chinese plug - ins to Coreldraw etc, do they use VBA? Presumably Lasercut or similar just gets executed and the file name is a parameter? It goes through a dxf or similar file on the disk though rather than a page control language?
From my quick investigation (thanks to Rodney for the manuals to his machines), if memory serves they change everything to Adobe Illustrator format... likely because someone had an AI-based software chunk already written, and it went from there. I believe it was a script of some form or another you run from inside Corel.

[john banks]

Are there any concerns about accuracy, rounding, conversion, data loss/glitches from this method, whether practical or theoretical? (ie is it a good model to follow for a possible printer driver if we can convert PCL5 or whatever to AI and then pass it on). How would you design it ground up if you had the time?

[Ross Moshinsky]

One should make a choice between a system that is continuously being developed and enhanced for many years to come, and DIY machinery.

ULS system (with the connected PC's) are reliable at least as the no name control boards with who knows 1,000 bucks development interface software which are attached to I don't know who built this hardware. Now you see me, now you don't, development "team".

Many of the users I know work on their PC's, preparing additional jobs or editing data, while the machine is working.
Here at our office we also demonstrate 3D printers. We frequently operate a 3D printing job and demonstrate the laser at the same time. 3D printing is a very demanding process that takes many hours to run. In a trade show last year, we operated two 3D printers, each for a day length job, and demonstrated the laser from same notebook. I would not recommend this setup to my customers, but there are space contraints in trade shows.

And if I had a very precious award to process, I don't know any reasonable operator that would care to start watching HD movie right at that time, right at that place. I need to see the first employer who would allow such or similar habbits. Not that it would not work.

No offense, but you sound like every laser rep I've ever spoken to.

1. Who says the Chinese machines aren't being developed? Rodne bought a laser and right after it came, a new main board came out. How is that not development? You're telling me Universal has been using essentially the same board system since 2007. How is that development?

2. There is a big difference between running a demo and running a shop. Our computers are doing anything from internet research, to processing graphics, to responding to emails, to typing invoices, ect ect ect. Getting on a bad web page or jamming the PC up trying a new graphics technique is part of doing business. It happens. The trade show environment is controlled. You have 5 files and just run them all day. They are all processed and ready to go.

3. Again, it was a for instance. If a job is running for 2 hours and it's a Sunday and you've already put in a 60 hour week, watching a movie is not farfetched. My question is, what can and can't I do while running the job? I mean I don't understand why anyone would realistically want to limit their PCs production when the average laser file size is just not that large and could fit on an on-board memory.


Seriously? There is a vast difference between streaming a movie over the internet vs transmitting a print job piecemeal over a USB cable. If nothing else, the laser is actually quite tolerant of interruptions to its communication flow for any packet size larger than a scan line, something that cannot be said of music or video.

(Note that the interface method ULS uses is virtually identical to that used by every inkjet printer on the planet.)

I'm well aware that there are different levels of streaming media, but you're still streaming media. Now if ULS strongly suggested using a PC dedicated to running the laser, I could buy into their thinking. This is the way CNCs and high production print shops have been run for years. That's the only way I would think that Universal's system would make sense. Running the laser and doing work off the same PC is just asking for trouble.

[Ross Moshinsky]

Are there any concerns about accuracy, rounding, conversion, data loss/glitches from this method, whether practical or theoretical? (ie is it a good model to follow for a possible printer driver if we can convert PCL5 or whatever to AI and then pass it on). How would you design it ground up if you had the time?

John,

This should give you a better idea of how things work, to a certain degree.

[Lee DeRaud]

I'm well aware that there are different levels of streaming media, but you're still streaming media.Not for any commonly-used definition of "streaming media": the data going from the PC to the laser in the ULS model has no time and latency constraints. All the time-critical and non-interruptable processing is still taking place in the laser's microcontroller.

[Ross Moshinsky]

Not for any commonly-used definition of "streaming media": the data going from the PC to the laser in the ULS model has no time and latency constraints. All the time-critical and non-interruptable processing is still taking place in the laser's microcontroller.

It still has the issue where if there is an interruption of the data stream. I'm not concerned about the processing of data. I'm concerned about the data not getting there and what happens then. If my computer freezes while I'm sending a file over to the laser, I simply turn off my computer. Turn off my laser. Reboot everything. No issues or concerns because I never pressed the start button. I don't have to worry about ruining the job because I never pressed go.

Again, this is why CNC machines run of dedicated PCs 99% of the time. It's essentially the same process as we're discussing here. Ask any CNC operator if they would run their CNC machine off their design PC. The same can be said for people using large format printers. Almost all of them run off a print server. Many times the print server is running off of Windows Server or at minimum, a stripped down version of WinXP. Again, they won't design on the same PC because it's simply not worth the risk. Engravers have taken a different approach and basically made the engraver itself the dedicated PC. It might be limiting, but it's a method that has worked very very well for years and years. It's one of the last things I would look to change.

[john banks]

Thanks Ross that is much more informative than the stuff I'd already downloaded. Will have a good read.

[Scott Shepherd]

With all due respect, Ross, you're talking theory and your opinion here, not facts, in reference to how the Universal works. I've had an epilog and currently have a Universal. The Epilog sent the file over and you could unplug the computer and run the laser. The Universal requires the computer to be connected, but it does not limit the use of the computer at all. In my experience, real world experience, having run the Universal for 3 years or more now, I can say that with the Epilog, we had "file issues" every now and then, but nothing "major". With the Universal, we've never once had a single file issue or anything like what you envision to be the downfall of that type of system.

The machine is rock solid and the setup with the computer driving it works outstanding. We can control and run jobs, pull repeat jobs, with all the settings in tact, and create new graphics, jobs, etc, all while it's working. I can go into the job control software and pull up a 6 month old job, look at all the settings, save the settings from a job run 6 months ago, apply those settings to a job I'm about to run next, etc.

My real world experience tells me this systems works and it works darn good. In fact, I'd never buy another machine that didn't do the things that setup does.

[Ross Moshinsky]

Steve,

Still doesn't change my stance. What if my computer freezes while running a job? Just because your computer and software doesn't result in lock-ups, doesn't mean others won't have that issue. This isn't theory. This is reality. Programs freeze. Windows freezes. There is a reason why nearly every person in the world knows what control+alt+delete does.

[Scott Shepherd]

What if I get hit by a car while walking across the street? You better believe if this was a real issue, there would be 100's of posts on this forum and other forums with people saying "My job got scrapped because my computer locked up while running on a Universal Laser".

Just for reference, Trotec and Universal both operate this way and I bet you can't find a single post where this has ever happened on this forum. With that many posts and real users out there, I think it's a safe bet that it's not even a remote or occasional issue. It's fine to be paranoid, but you have to have at least one example of this being an issue on a Universal or a Trotec to throw them all out with the bathwater.

It's far, far different than running stuff on a router. On our router, I agree (plus you don't have a choice, since it locks you out from doing anything while the machine is running), but trust me, it's not even remotely like running a router.

I understand your concern, it's just not a valid one with Universal or Trotecs. I can't speak for others, since those are the only two that I know that operate that way.

[Ross Moshinsky]

You still haven't answered the question. What happens when the computer locks up?

I don't post about every bug I have about my equipment. I know them and accept them (to some degree). People know that Universal and Trotec operate this way and when the computer freezes, they accept it. To act like this way of doing things is better than the on-board memory way is what I really took issue with. For me, I would have to budget another $400 if I were buying a ULS to run a "laser server".

[Doug Novic]

Pretty good debate going on here and a lot of knowledge and opinions flying around so I may as well throw some more stuff into the pile.

I've been programmming CNC equipment since 1992. Started writing code and evolved into software to write the code into very sophisticated software for CNC programming costing over $25k. Got my laser and found it to be very basic and very fullfilling BUT a printer driver for the Chinese machines would be great. Difficult to write? I don't know. Did Bill gates make any money from his first programming venture? Has Ross Perot made any money on software and drivers? So not wanting to boot up your PC for a paultry $1k?

A lot of CNC software does have printer drivers. They are geared for a wide array of machines and tooling options. In fact a lot of cheap CNC software has this same abilitiy. This is for 3 to 5 axis equipment. A laser is a simple 2 axis machine so I agree... there should be print drivers for the Chinese lasers. I hope the Bill Gates of tomorrow reads this, understands the revenue potential of royalty payments and will boot up his/her PC and get to work. Ray Scott has already written printer drivers for some software but programming is not his full time job. So don't say it cannot be done or it's not worth it. That's a defeatist attitude. We need that good ole American "can do" attitude.

Well, there is another 2 cents thrown in. Thanks for tolerating my soap box stance.

[Scott Shepherd]

You still haven't answered the question. What happens when the computer locks up?

I don't post about every bug I have about my equipment. I know them and accept them (to some degree). People know that Universal and Trotec operate this way and when the computer freezes, they accept it. To act like this way of doing things is better than the on-board memory way is what I really took issue with. For me, I would have to budget another $400 if I were buying a ULS to run a "laser server".

I can't answer that question because in 3-4 years of running it, on 3 different computers, I have yet to have that happen.

I would imagine it's about the same level as having a file get corrupted while sending through a print driver that sends the job and forgets it. Do a search on this forum for how many times people had a file that got corrupted in the process of sending it over to their laser. Then do a search for the problem you imagine exists on the Universals and Trotecs. That's reality. You'll find many examples of the file getting corrupted while sending over. So what's your expectation? A perfect setup? A system that's fail proof?

I've had fairly high powered PC's running our lasers and I've had pretty low end computers running them. Currently, it's running a low end PC. In the grand scheme of things, you have to do a fair analysis of the pros and cons and in this case, what's considered a "con" by some has zero evidence of real life issues.

If it were an issue, even if it were a day to day glitch, when someone asks which laser they should buy, you'd at least have ONE person saying they have had nothing but problems.

Let's assume for a minute it does happen. So what? The job stops running. You restart the computer, you open corel, send the job over with the direction changed, and you run it from the opposite direction until it hits the previous engraving and then you hit the pause button. Problem solved. It's not as if it's going to destroy your piece.

However, I've seen machines that accept the job and don't need the computer print stuff that's not even in the file. Maybe a stray line or some artifact somewhere that's not in the drawing. So I'd have to give the real life example data a hard look. If you do, you'll see your concern should be with machines that don't do this, rather than ones that do.

[Ross Moshinsky]

1. I've been on this forum for a couple of years now and I recall not that many transfer issues.

2. You're a lucky man not to have had any freezes while running your machine.

3. If the machine just stops, then you're absolutely right. I'm fearful of the other options. The machine makes marks where it shouldn't.

I'll concede that no system is perfect and that machines with on-board memory have bugs if you can concede that ULS's system of "streaming" data live can be an issue because of PCs freezing.

In the end, this is way off topic. I've been talking to Shenhui and they don't seem interested in offering anything other than what they do. They like their plugin method for Corel and AutoCAD. Otherwise they suggest using their LaserWorks software. One thing they don't mention openly is the LaserWorks software runs off a dongle. I know Full Spectrum Engineering offers some sort of "print driver" but for me, it's not really a print driver. They are exporting a file into their little piece of software and then you're sending it to the laser. Still haven't figured out the real benefit of this method.

[Lee DeRaud]

I know Full Spectrum Engineering offers some sort of "print driver" but for me, it's not really a print driver. They are exporting a file into their little piece of software and then you're sending it to the laser. Still haven't figured out the real benefit of this method.That's actually the way the ULS setup works (at least on my older cheaper model), and it's every bit as "real" a print driver as the ones that send print output to PDF files. The two main advantages are (1) any program that can print can use it (with the same caveats as apply to any regular printer) and (2) the output files are saved for reuse (the last 100 by default, but that can be increased). The only drawback is the one extra click to bring up the viewer/control panel app that actually talks to the laser. I suppose the extra functionality it provides could be implemented somewhere in the printer driver 'properties' tab, but that wouldn't really streamline the workflow.

My main objection to embedding file storage and manipulation on the actual output device, whether laser or standard printer, is that the user interface is usually crippled by the need to work with an inadequate display and an inadequate number of controls. (I outgrew my tolerance for that approach 25 years ago programming Yamaha DX7s.)

[john banks]

I've spent about a day on this and I have made a new printer driver which prints from any Windows application. So far it is only working for non-text vectors. It also needs code to glue it all together and automate it and I'll aim to do this before addressing the text and bitmaps.

The end result, at least for vectors initially should be to hit "print" and then you will see Laserworks open with the vectors you printed.

[Dennis Rech]

I like to stay clued in so I've been looking into Chinese laser systems since they seem to become more and more popular, especially since Rodne went to China.

My biggest question is, why don't they just develop a print driver? It seems like it would make everyone's life a bit simpler.

I have a FSE 40 watt laser and it comes with a Windows print driver. It seems to work well with any program that can print or plot to any other Windows print driver. If the program is drawing vector lines, you can cut or engrave them from the driver. If the program is producing bitmap pictures, you can engrave them.
The print driver functions just like the one on an Epson printer.
When I use the computer in the shop next to the laser, I just print directly to it.
When I use the computer in the office, I print to the XPS Document Writer and then carry a thumb drive to the USB port on the FSE.
Seems that if a print driver can be implemented on a $2500 laser, it can be done on the others although it is a bit strange that FSE does not provide a print driver for their bigger, much more expensive lasers.
The FSE 40 needs to be connected to an external computer to function. Many of the Chinese lasers can run freestanding. This may explain the lack of a print driver for them.

Dennis

[george hine]

I was hoping to see this thread pick up momentum again! I would love a affordable print driver solution! sorry to dig up the bones of this thread!

[john banks]

I haven't had time to do more on it, but in daily use saving a few mouse clicks is negligible. Depends on how convenient the supplied plug ins are to suit your chosen software.