Light burn vs Coreldraw/print driver ?

[Nick Andraka]

I have used AI, and last few years CorelDraw 2019, and have stuck with CD, i just fits me better.
I have an Epilog Radius 25W that just keeps chugging along with a 20 year old Synrad tube that wont die.
But I HATE the old clunky Radius printer driver.
And I know the Radius machine's days are numbered.

I have noticed Lightburn with it's "All-in-One" capability with the Ruida based lasers, And was thinking that is the way to go,, but with a RF based machine.
I was even toying with the idea of gutting the electronics and motors out off the Radius and refurbishing it with a Ruida controller, new PS and motors.

I got a trial copy of LightBurn and have been looking deeper at it.
I much prefer Corel's design atmosphere over Lightburns.

With Corel/Epilog driver, line width controls raster/vector, my preferred method.
Lightburns whole machine control section seems overly complicated?? maybe it has to be to fine tune the hundreds of different machines and tubes?

Maybe I should be dropping the idea of upgrading my Radius with a Ruida and running Lightburn?
Perhaps I should go back to looking for a used Epilog that is still factory supported and has a more modern driver.

Thinking I am spoiled with an American machine that has hardware and driver that are designed to work exceptionally together??

Am I missing something with LightBurn ??

[Bill George]

I have used CD for years so I really did not need the design (very good) tools in LB. But Lightburn really has a good interface for controlling your machine. I use both, but with LB you really do not need most of the Corel Draw features.

[Steve Utick]

I have noticed Lightburn with it's "All-in-One" capability with the Ruida based lasers, And was thinking that is the way to go,, but with a RF based machine.
I was even toying with the idea of gutting the electronics and motors out off the Radius and refurbishing it with a Ruida controller, new PS and motors.

I got a trial copy of LightBurn and have been looking deeper at it.
I much prefer Corel's design atmosphere over Lightburns.

With Corel/Epilog driver, line width controls raster/vector, my preferred method.
Lightburns whole machine control section seems overly complicated?? maybe it has to be to fine tune the hundreds of different machines and tubes?

Maybe I should be dropping the idea of upgrading my Radius with a Ruida and running Lightburn?
Perhaps I should go back to looking for a used Epilog that is still factory supported and has a more modern driver.

Thinking I am spoiled with an American machine that has hardware and driver that are designed to work exceptionally together??

Am I missing something with LightBurn ??

I've been a long time LightBurn supporter here. That being said, my current co2 laser machine is an Epilog Fusion Pro 48. So, I've seen both sides as well. There are certain things that I like and miss out of LightBurn for sure. There are numerous things that I find easier and more user friendly in LightBurn than CorelDraw. But, I'm learning more and more how to do those things in CorelDraw as well. I still use LightBurn frequently do so some of my layout, as I find it quicker and easier than trying to figure out how to do the equivalent in CorelDraw.

LightBurn has evolved over time to be a very powerful tool though. I also have a 60w JPT MOPA fiber machine that I'm running LightBurn as the control program on. I find LightBurn vastly superior to EZCad 2 for that for sure. Some of the complexity in the machine control in LightBurn has come about with the added support of Galvo lasers. In LightBurn, you can now have up to I believe 11 sub-layers in a layer, to support multiple hatches for Galvo Lasers. This of course is also supported for co2 lasers, but not nearly as useful. The main use case here is to have a fill with an outline so you can engrave something and then cut it out in a single layer.

The interface in LightBurn is very dynamic, and changes based upon the controller type you have selected, as many things are not supported by certain controllers, etc. All in all, it's a very powerful program and is regularly updated and improved. For the money, I think it's an incredible value if you have a machine that supports it, and vastly superior to a lot of the programs it's designed to replace (RDWorks, SmartCarve, LaserGBRL, EZCad2, etc)

[Nick Andraka]

I have used CD for years so I really did not need the design (very good) tools in LB. But Lightburn really has a good interface for controlling your machine. I use both, but with LB you really do not need most of the Corel Draw features.

My understanding is that the only thing that will control an Epilog machine,, is an Epilog printer driver.
So my workflow would be : design in CD > Export into Lightburn > Print from Lightburn > Into Epilog printer driver.

From my limited experience with LB,, it does not control Raster/Vector via line width, and that is what The Epilog driver would be controlling the laser machine with.

Now this would all be a irrelevant if I DID end up with a Ruida controlled machine,, as LB would take direct control (no printer driver needed)

[Nick Andraka]

So, With your Epilog, is LB in the mix at all?

I've been a long time LightBurn supporter here. That being said, my current co2 laser machine is an Epilog Fusion Pro 48. So, I've seen both sides as well. There are certain things that I like and miss out of LightBurn for sure. There are numerous things that I find easier and more user friendly in LightBurn than CorelDraw. But, I'm learning more and more how to do those things in CorelDraw as well. I still use LightBurn frequently do so some of my layout, as I find it quicker and easier than trying to figure out how to do the equivalent in CorelDraw.

LightBurn has evolved over time to be a very powerful tool though. I also have a 60w JPT MOPA fiber machine that I'm running LightBurn as the control program on. I find LightBurn vastly superior to EZCad 2 for that for sure. Some of the complexity in the machine control in LightBurn has come about with the added support of Galvo lasers. In LightBurn, you can now have up to I believe 11 sub-layers in a layer, to support multiple hatches for Galvo Lasers. This of course is also supported for co2 lasers, but not nearly as useful. The main use case here is to have a fill with an outline so you can engrave something and then cut it out in a single layer.

The interface in LightBurn is very dynamic, and changes based upon the controller type you have selected, as many things are not supported by certain controllers, etc. All in all, it's a very powerful program and is regularly updated and improved. For the money, I think it's an incredible value if you have a machine that supports it, and vastly superior to a lot of the programs it's designed to replace (RDWorks, SmartCarve, LaserGBRL, EZCad2, etc)

[Steve Utick]

So, With your Epilog, is LB in the mix at all?

Only for use as a design tool sometimes. LightBurn does have print capabilities that I tried early on when they introduced it, but it was quirky at the time and I've never tried it again. If I design something in LightBurn, I export to an SVG and import to CorelDraw to send to the laser.