I’ve got a software background on extremely complex code. I’ve got to say that the LB Programmers have done and are doing, a fantastic job of extracting or creating every possible use of this software. If you, whom are reading this, stops and considers just how complex this code has to be, to work with all the different laser cutter/engraver systems out there, plus new ones coming every day…I’m impressed. Considering the numerous variables involved for so many different options/requirements/usages, its practically a miracle that this works as well as it does. Please give them a break when you discover something not quite right. Let them know but don’t give them a hard time.
Thank You LB!
14 Likes
As a long time software engineer across many languages and technologies, I second this!! I was just thinking about this today as I have been evaluating LB against the manufacturer’s software.
Both as a user and a software engineer… I am impressed with the utility of LB. It’s allowed me to be very productive already (and I’m only getting started). The UI looks a bit “old school” but I appreciate how everything I need is right where I need it and easy to find. I also have some experience with embedded programming, arduino, etc, and the fact that so many lasers (and all their quirks) are supported is also impressive.
Also as a software engineer, I appreciate and agree with that last statement. We try our best but some problems and edge cases are “blind” to us until someone points them out. Just make them aware, do your best to be as detailed as possible, and provide the information requested for analysis.
So I’ll join in on this shout out… and I’ll go buy my license now. 
10 Likes
We love hearing this. 
Thank you for the kind words of appreciation, encouragement, and support. Thank you.
4 Likes
My code was mostly all in data acquisition and processing for testing spacecraft so I do understand just how complex things can get. Truly the LB software is more than complex and I view it more as a form of art. Truly, creating code in all it’s individual capabilities, makes it an art form. Thanks again to the programmers and thanks to those all of us who choose to use it. We appreciate it!
4 Likes
While I agree that the overall product capabilities are top-notch, there are a couple things I’d like to add:
First, beware new releases. No, I’m not talking about betas, the actual released software. It would appear their regression testing is lacking, as new releases seem to include new versions of old bugs. I’ve only been a user since about January '24, but so far it’s been 2-for-2 with the bad bug reports immediately after release.
Second, the purported “complexity” involved in working sooooo many different lasers is not at all revolutionary, nor even difficult. In fact, I’d say that post-processor and driver-based architectures are common across many many systems. After all, Windows, Linux, and every other operating system uses some form of dynamically-loaded driver dispatching. That LB uses that same way to interface with a variety of hardware–notably across a relatively small set of computer interface technologies–is fully expected. In fact, I’d honestly say they didn’t go far ENOUGH, in that there’s no ability to modify the “post-processor” style translation of LB’s movement commands into GCode. To me that’s a significant limitation, given that all the other CAD/CAM software I use absolutely includes hardware vendor tested and approved post processors…that can all be edited with a mere text editor. Heck, AutoDesk Fusion 360’s CAM post processors are written in C#!
Anyway, yes, LB is a good small-order CAD/CAM tool. But it’s not even a little bit complex when compared to things like modern ICCAD synthesis and layout software. Indeed, it’s actually a relatively small code-base, when you consider systems like Microsoft Exchange are in the 30+ MILLION lines of code, and that’s nothing but a big protocol-engine and storage system.
Thom
(44-years as a consumer-electronics HW+SW+ICs EE, so tiny bit of exposure to the industry)
Hi Thom
You are 100% correct
LightBurn value proposition is not to be compared with multiple orders of magnitude more specialized and expensive software packages.
Never was that the intent, claimed or otherwise. Not necessarily sure the comparison is fair, but is definitely accurate.
I mostly agree with both of you regarding the complexity when in comparison of other software packages. lol, even mine, written in Labview, where I had hundreds of major subroutines when encompassed thousands of LV subs, mine was very complex indeed and furthermore, I didn’t have the luxury of making a single mistake.
What I was commenting on was the LB software, works very well for numerous different machines and instruction formats, all while having to deal with the considerable driver issues as needed. LB is not charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their product and they continue to evolve their product to obtain more usability from it, for us.
I will maintain my view that their software is very good for the price. I respect your views too.
3 Likes
Maybe a little clarity will help here…
- Lightburn is not a CAD/CAM system, and does not claim that title.
- Hardware vendors with big expensive machines want to play well with Catia, AutoCAD, and others in order to promote sales. The Chinese manufactures could mostly care less about Lightburn. Few release details on how their controllers process commands.
Those that do sometimes change the programming, making it look like Lightburn has a bug. Other manufacturers modify the GRBL code (it is Open Source) they install on their controller boards for their own purposes, often deviating from the GRBL standards. Another Lightburn bug, right?
Bottom line is that I am not alone believing Lightburn gives a stunning amount of capability for that $60 license fee. The developer and staff support, and programming progress, is a model I wish more software vendors would adopt.
A LOT of people are making a living using Lightburn. How can that possibly be anything less than excellent?
2 Likes
Also Lightburn has a “Post-processor” in the form of Custom GCode.
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter whether their marketing department wants to use the term CAD/CAM.
Computer-Aided Design / Computer-Aided Manufacturing.
If you somehow believe that LB does not do those things, then you are flat-out lying to us all.
Nobody said LB has no value, nor even that it wasn’t a good value.
What I said is that recent releases show signs of an underfunded / under-prioritized
regression testing. And sorry, the defects I’ve seen had zero to do with hardware. But, you
already know that because you went back and looked at the error reports for the last six
months of releases, right? Right?
A LOT of people make their living on Social Media. Does that make it “good”?
Equating software subjective rating with it’s use to make money is a just first-order
thinking. I know a ton of companies who continue to use Windows7 and 2005-era
software, and make good money with the output. By your logic, why did we ever even
bother creating better software since the early 2000s? After all, it must have already
been excellent…who needs excellenter? No, instead, it was barely passable back then,
and that software is barely usable today, and now there are better versions. But
software today STILL has far too many defects to somehow claim what programmers
do even constitutes “engineering” in my opinion. It’s more like a Medical Practice, where
there are gonna get it right the next time, just you watch.
That’s not at all the same thing. In a post-processor system, LB’s internal atomic operations would be exposed for the customizer to define their own GCode for each operation, and GCode field/parameter values would be available by named symbols. Most post-processor systems include both mathematical functions and 4GL extensibility. What LB provides is the ability to add GCode at the start and at the end of what it creates using it’s secret-sauce.
It actually matters a lot, when the terms define a whole segment of software.
LightBurn does aid on design - if we want to take things literal. Of course.
But do not do what everyone understands as CAD/CAM.
We all know it, but we can discuss semantics all day long of course.
Still failing to see the point you are trying to make. Maybe is me.
Maybe you could put it in the shape of suggestions instead?
Otherwise, this easily devolves into a really not very useful conversation.
2 Likes
I am fairly confident I did not ask for comments back, and instead was giving my opinion of LB software quality, as a programmer and electronics engineer for 44 years now. Whether you children and wannabe engineers want to argue the fine points of what constitutes CAD/CAM or “good” software is your choice. Just know this:
Arguing with an Engineer is like mud-wrestling a pig. All you get is dirty and tired, and you soon realize the pig enjoys it.
But hey, do go ahead and continue your soooooo-typical ad hominem attacks, because they really do help validate your points…except for that whole “NOT” part.
Ahem Thom, not sure what gave you the impression that anyone was “attacking” anyone.
But if you see any counter argument of your point as an attack to your person - maybe we need to cool this down a bit.
I asked - genuinely - for you to pose your thoughts in a suggestion form. I have more interest on knowing what could be done better than discussing semantics on the meaning of something.
As per comments back - you don’t need to ask for them - this is a public forum. Is part of the territory.
LOL…what kind of a statement is that? “…what everyone understands as CAD/CAM”
Hahahahahahahahahhahaaa…
Who the heck are YOU to define what people think of as CAD/CAM? Did you do a survey? You have somehow intimate knowledge of all people who use that term? Really? Overstuff with hubris is all you are, mate.
I use easily a half-dozen suites of tools, and every single one of them that lets you create, import and modify applicable design “documents” and then output information for the use of a device which then makes the intended design in physical form, is CAD/CAM no matter what your tiny little brain tells you. There’s not certifying body that draws a line in the sand for these kinds of things.
Geez the amateur-hour here is amazing…
We got the point. Thanks for your feedback.
Why do you feel the need to belittle someone in this group for their opinion? You might not agree with them, but your sandpaper attitude is clearly abrasive.
This discussion is no longer constructive, so we’re locking this thread.
We welcome comments and opinions from all - positive or negative - either here on the forum or via Support@lightburnsoftware.com.
4 Likes