ULS or Epilog or Trotec in 2013

[John J Wang]

We are looking to add a second laser engraver to our ULS M300 35W. We are cutting more acrylics now and 35W is becoming a limiting factor, in addition to M300's particular quirks at low speed where we have very little fine tune control.

All three manufacturers are constantly improving their products so what I am writing now may not be true 6 month from now.

Over the last few month I visited all three local sales reps. For Epilog, other than the newer Fusion, the control software on Epilog seems weaker than ULS or Trotec, ie no job control ability. It has rolling memory for 6 jobs, but calling up a repeat job seems easier with either ULS or Trotec. Something that I like on the older Epilog is the ability to turn off the servo and manually align the laser.

Trotec seems to be everyone's favorite. However, I wasn't that impressed with it, or rather it didn't meet the sky high expectation based on its reputation in my mind. We were expecting ULS to be pummeled by Trotec, but ULS seems to hold its ground with its stepper motors and thinner drive belts. To be fair, the ULS sales rep is very knowledgeable and seems to be the only one of the three that runs co2 laser engraving on a production basis. ULS still uses stepper motors, but base on our experience, we're okay with stepper motors.

I send a couple files that I am currently running on the M300 to get a time estimate. Time wise, Epilog and ULS are similar, but Trotec was 30% faster. The surprising part is that vector cutting on a 80W trotec is half the time of a 60W uls. Can that be true?

The vector time break down are as follows,

35W M300 38m:25s
60W ULS 21m:35s
80W Trotec 10m:35s

epilog didn't breakdown the engraving/cutting time.

Going above 75W on ULS require a dual laser setup and becomes quite expensive so if we go with a ULS we'll most likely settle with a 60W system. For Trotec, a 80W system is ~$1K more than the 60W system. Also, Trotec's latest firmware will run on it's older speedy system as well. Where as our M300 cannot run the newer ULS control software.

Has anyone recharged their Trotec tube? What's the cost like? Tube recharge cost on a Trotec seems to be a lot higher than ULS but the recharge price is suppose to be comparable for their newer ceramic tubes.

So, going into NBM long beach, ULS seems to be our favorite. We're not set on one particular brand. Which ever one gives us the best value will be the one we choose and we'll be happy with any of the three.

[Scott Shepherd]

Trotec seems to be everyone's favorite. However, I wasn't that impressed with it, or rather it didn't meet the sky high expectation based on its reputation in my mind. We were expecting ULS to be pummeled by Trotec, but ULS seems to hold its ground with its stepper motors and thinner drive belts.

That's not even close to being good, real world data. We have a Universal and a Trotec and there's very little to compare in speed, other than they are both lasers. Watching the Trotec run and then watching the Universal run, it's like watching paint dry.

I've said this about a zillion times now, but I would never go back to a laser that didn't have a programmable Z-Axis and Job Control. Having said that, I know a large number of people I have spoken to don't use the programmable Z or know how to use it.

The Trotec is a different animal all together. If you were asking which one is easier to use, I'd say the Universal. If you were asking me which one is more powerful, I'd say the Trotec. It all depends on what your skill level is and how you plan to use it. The two work on completely different theories in the job control side and it took me some time for the light bulb to finally come on. Now that it came on, I do things on the trotec that are far more efficient than I could do on the Universal.

But speed wise, the two aren't in the same category. Build wise, the Trotec is superior in every way, hands down. Once a year, on the Universal, we replace belts, bearings, pulleys at about $500. Won't be doing that on the Trotec.

If I had to buy another laser tomorrow, it would be another Trotec.

[John J Wang]

That's not even close to being good, real world data. We have a Universal and a Trotec and there's very little to compare in speed, other than they are both lasers. Watching the Trotec run and then watching the Universal run, it's like watching paint dry.

I've said this about a zillion times now, but I would never go back to a laser that didn't have a programmable Z-Axis and Job Control. Having said that, I know a large number of people I have spoken to don't use the programmable Z or know how to use it.

The Trotec is a different animal all together. If you were asking which one is easier to use, I'd say the Universal. If you were asking me which one is more powerful, I'd say the Trotec. It all depends on what your skill level is and how you plan to use it. The two work on completely different theories in the job control side and it took me some time for the light bulb to finally come on. Now that it came on, I do things on the trotec that are far more efficient than I could do on the Universal.

But speed wise, the two aren't in the same category. Build wise, the Trotec is superior in every way, hands down. Once a year, on the Universal, we replace belts, bearings, pulleys at about $500. Won't be doing that on the Trotec.

If I had to buy another laser tomorrow, it would be another Trotec.


How much faster is Trotec in engraving an how much faster is it in vector cutting when compared to ULS? The numbers I got from Trotec is about ~5% faster in raster engraving and 30% faster in vector engraving. That is sort of reverse of what I had expected. I've always thought vector cutting is more a function of laser power. Path optimization does play a role, but probably not that much in this case.

I was really expecting Trotec to completely blow pass the ULS, but that doesn't seem to be the case. . . . which I also find odd.

One of the unkown on a Trotec is the laser recharge cost. How does trotec compared with ULS? I know, cost is only one of the component, life between recharge is another.

[Martin Reynolds]

My experience with a GCC Explorer II laser is that the vector cutting arc motion (curves) is really slow, because the controller doesn't know how to do a curve. It performs a series of little lines, stopping at the end of each one. This step motion really limits the cutting speed. The engraving head movement, on the other hand, is super fast.

I've also decompiled the commands enough to find that, even if I send a curve to the laser, its controller still breaks it up. The GCC driver on the PC version for the explorer also breaks up the curves, so you have to watch for that as well.

The way to test for this is to cut a square and a circle of equal perimeter. If the square is much faster than the circle, there's an algorithm issue somewhere in the chain.

[Tim Bateson]

Prior to the NBM Show in Indianapolis, I would have voted Epilog, but I have to say Trotec really impressed me. The capability that I wish Epilog had was Trotecs ability to use a CO2 & Fiber in the same machine & within the same job run. My wife was successful in keeping me from pulling out the credit card.

[Ross Moshinsky]

For vector cutting, it's hard to touch the value of a Chinese machine. Now if you're looking to do mixed work, things change, but strictly cutting, I can't imagine any "mainstream" machine touching the value of a Chinese machine.

[Scott Shepherd]

How much faster is Trotec in engraving an how much faster is it in vector cutting when compared to ULS? The numbers I got from Trotec is about ~5% faster in raster engraving and 30% faster in vector engraving. That is sort of reverse of what I had expected. I've always thought vector cutting is more a function of laser power. Path optimization does play a role, but probably not that much in this case.

I honestly don't know who's giving you those numbers. They couldn't be further from the real world truth. The Trotec is substantially faster in rastering. That's where the HUGE difference comes in. I don't have any numbers in mind, but my guess is that it's easily 30-40% faster in rastering. In vectoring, it would depend on the file. It you were cutting a 12" circle, the times will be about the same. If you are cutting a sheet full of 3/8" circles, the Trotec would be faster. It would be faster because it moves between cuts faster. You'd see less of a difference in vectoring. I'd suspect that's where the 5% should be used, not in rastering.



I was really expecting Trotec to completely blow pass the ULS, but that doesn't seem to be the case. . . . which I also find odd.

Either someone didn't know how to run the machine you demo'd, or there was something else going on. I'm telling you, I have these 2 machines sitting side by side and there is no comparison when it comes to time to run a job. It's like driving a cadillac or driving a ferrari. I'll put it to you this way, if I have ANY work that requires a substantial amount of engraving or cutting, it always goes to the Trotec. If I have smaller quantities, then that always goes to the Universal (I like to make sure both machines get constant use).

[Mike Null]

After 7 years of production use and only one day of real down time to replace x axis bearings, etc. I would not consider anything but Trotec. My last machine was a Universal and a good machine but not in the class of Trotec. The new ceramic cartridge is touted to give even longer life and I'm comfortable that Trotec would not have made the change if that were not so.

As far as cutting performance is concerned the new Job Control produces smoother curves but I never had a problem before. Speed wise on vector cutting it is largely related to power but raster speed on the Trotec is unmatched.

If I were to buy a new machine it would be an 80 watt Trotec.

[Martin Boekers]

One thing I have always wondered about is why the Trotec is faster on vector cutting? If all is considered equal Pwr, Speed, Freq, Lens, Tube why couldn't settings on an Epilog be set to match.

What makes the Trotec faster? Does the driver "smooth out" the nodes automatically?

[Scott Shepherd]

Marty, read it in my post above. It you were cutting (1) 12" circle, the times would be about the same. However, if you were cutting 1000 small circles, the Trotec would be faster. It wouldn't be faster because it cuts faster, it would be faster because it positions from cut to cut faster. That time adds up over quantity so it does make a difference on larger quantity parts. 1 piece, not so much.

[Keith Outten]

In a production environment Trotec is the best machine and the best value. It's probably less expensive to boot when you look at real world metrics.

Over a one year period producing Corian ADA signs in 2012 for three large commercial buildings we started the year running two lasers, a 60 watt Xenetech and a 75 watt Trotec. After a couple months we shut down the Xenetech machine because the Trotec was so fast, we actually came in ahead of schedule and 95% of the work was raster engraving Corian signs. Time savings were significant as the Xenetech took an average of 12 minutes per sign and the Trotec took right at 5 minutes. We engraved well over a thousand door signs and probably 200 large specialty signs for the stairwells and elevators, etc.

When the smoke cleared two people produced right at $250,000 in signs for the three buildings in under twelve months. The Trotec paid for its self big time and being late on any of the three projects was not an option.

In the past I used a 35 watt Epilog Legend and it averaged 28 minutes per door sign.
The Trotec Speedy 300 80 watt machine in my shop right now averages 4 minutes per sign.
.

[Martin Boekers]

Marty, read it in my post above. It you were cutting (1) 12" circle, the times would be about the same. However, if you were cutting 1000 small circles, the Trotec would be faster. It wouldn't be faster because it cuts faster, it would be faster because it positions from cut to cut faster. That time adds up over quantity so it does make a difference on larger quantity parts. 1 piece, not so much.

Sorry I missed that. That says something about quality if it can move to positions more quickly and still be consistent
and accurate even over time.

[Keith Outten]

Martin,

Trotec Speedy 300 machines are capable of 150 ips with a 5G acceleration. This is the reason that they are so fast and the time difference is obvious on longer engraving jobs.

When I got my Trotec Scott and I were comparing notes trying to figure out where the speed was coming from. After awhile we decided that it was definitely a combination of the travel speed and the 5G acceleration that made the difference.

I engraved a large AutoCad map ( 24" by 15" Corian sign blank ) of a building that took one hour and 45 minutes on the Xenetech 60 watt. The same drawing took just over one hour on the Trotec 75 watt. The additional power made a difference but it could not be the only variable that could account for such a big difference in the time.
.

[Scott Shepherd]

Sorry I missed that. That says something about quality if it can move to positions more quickly and still be consistent
and accurate even over time.

Oh, it's deadly accurate and fast. That's why we love it so much. We're running a 27,000 piece job, vector cutting, and it's a very precise, detailed piece. This machine is tearing that job to shreds and working flawlessly (knock on wood). My guess is the Universal would take at least 30-40% more time to do the same job. It's a low power job, so in this case, power has nothing to do with the math.

[Dan Hintz]

For reference... the ULS and Epilog are rated around 75ips. As Keith mentioned, the Trotec is rated at 150ips (I actually thought it was 145, but whatever). During raster operations, if you can cover most of the table with your design, the Trotec will be twice as fast just from those values alone.

[Martin Boekers]

For reference... the ULS and Epilog are rated around 75ips. As Keith mentioned, the Trotec is rated at 150ips (I actually thought it was 145, but whatever). During raster operations, if you can cover most of the table with your design, the Trotec will be twice as fast just from those values alone.


But if they both are say 60 watt, unless there is say a "different quality in the beam or lens" shouldn't the speed be similar? I mean
if it takes equal amounts of power to raster or cut, if you change the speed then aren't you changing the quality of the raster or cut?

I do understand Scott's point and it makes sense if the speed is faster because of the quickness between cuts

So if I understand it right you are just saying if the speed is maxed out the Trotec is faster or you have the option of hitting it will more power then you can run the speed faster.

[Mike Null]

Martin

If you are engraving something that requires 60 watts to raster then the speed is relatively the same but if it requires less than 60 watts then the Trotec moves ahead on raster speed pretty quickly.

[John J Wang]

For vector cutting, it's hard to touch the value of a Chinese machine. Now if you're looking to do mixed work, things change, but strictly cutting, I can't imagine any "mainstream" machine touching the value of a Chinese machine.I know and I try not to think too much about it. I have a hard time buying products made in countries that are not only undemocratic, but is actively trying to subvert democracy with authoritarian capitalism. Chinese machines are a good deal on a personal level, but I don't think they're a good value for our society. However, we can't really make business decisions based solely on idealism. So, to find value beyond mainstream machines for vector cutting we're also going forward with building our own using open source designs, in addition to buying a mainstream machine for now. Yup, idealism and passion. . . . the driving force behind sound business decisions . . lol

[John J Wang]

I honestly don't know who's giving you those numbers. They couldn't be further from the real world truth. The Trotec is substantially faster in rastering. That's where the HUGE difference comes in. I don't have any numbers in mind, but my guess is that it's easily 30-40% faster in rastering. In vectoring, it would depend on the file. It you were cutting a 12" circle, the times will be about the same. If you are cutting a sheet full of 3/8" circles, the Trotec would be faster. It would be faster because it moves between cuts faster. You'd see less of a difference in vectoring. I'd suspect that's where the 5% should be used, not in rastering.Either someone didn't know how to run the machine you demo'd, or there was something else going on. I'm telling you, I have these 2 machines sitting side by side and there is no comparison when it comes to time to run a job. It's like driving a cadillac or driving a ferrari. I'll put it to you this way, if I have ANY work that requires a substantial amount of engraving or cutting, it always goes to the Trotec. If I have smaller quantities, then that always goes to the Universal (I like to make sure both machines get constant use).We got those number from Trotec. . . We email the same file to each of the 3 manufacturers. It was a blind test, none of the vendors knows the time for the other two brands. I also have my own time from the old M300 as reference. The time for Trotec was not what I had expected and I had to verify it, but Trotec said their numbers are correct. . . .

For ULS, we're looking at the VLS line instead of the more expensive PLS line. Other than a beefier power supply and an lcd control screen, we're told the VLS line and the PLS line is mechanically similar. With the newer job control software, we feel comfortable going with the VLS line.

The unexpected number we got from Trotec is not a deal breaker, it just means that we're lowering the premium we are willing to pay for a Trotec vs ULS. Trotec is a faster machine. The question is how much faster and how much more does it cost.

[Scott Shepherd]

We got those number from Trotec. . . We email the same file to each of the 3 manufacturers. It was a blind test, none of the vendors knows the time for the other two brands. I also have my own time from the old M300 as reference. The time for Trotec was not what I had expected and I had to verify it, but Trotec said their numbers are correct. . . .

For ULS, we're looking at the VLS line instead of the more expensive PLS line. Other than a beefier power supply and an lcd control screen, we're told the VLS line and the PLS line is mechanically similar. With the newer job control software, we feel comfortable going with the VLS line.

The unexpected number we got from Trotec is not a deal breaker, it just means that we're lowering the premium we are willing to pay for a Trotec vs ULS. Trotec is a faster machine. The question is how much faster and how much more does it cost.

Send me the file if you want, I'll run it on both machines and report back. PM me if you are interested and I'll send you my email address.

[Dan Hintz]

But if they both are say 60 watt, unless there is say a "different quality in the beam or lens" shouldn't the speed be similar?

Here's an example. I run anodized aluminum at 100S/20P. If I were to run it on a same-wattage Trotec, I could run at 100S/40P, which would run in half of the time.

[matthew knott]

John, why not put the file on here, this could be a great real world experiment, with the large community of laser owners i would be fascinated to see the results. Be great to see how a cheap chinese all the way to a range topping trotec actually shape up, i suspect no-one really knows as we all have preconceived ideas and biases, this should go to a myth buster type challenge !!

[Scott Shepherd]

Just for reference, I ran the files on both machines, and the numbers posted are way off on the Trotec. I suspect they used some incorrect settings or just pulled some stock setting. I used the settings for the material actually used, something we cut quite often and something we have dialed in pretty well.

I think the raster time we got for the Trotec was close to 1/2 the time they gave John.