In order to improve the quality and stability of public releases, we offer a “Public Beta” period for new releases.
We’ll test to the point we normally would before a release, then make the new version available here for anyone who wants to try it. We’ll gather feedback from those users to address any issues we missed before doing a general release.
If you encounter a bug in a public beta, please let us know by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please provide us with as much information as you can recall - ideally, provide the steps required to produce the issue, and attach any screenshots, crash logs, or images as needed. Please put ‘Public Beta’ in the subject line of your email., so we can set out to reproduce it and fix it.
The standard licensing rules apply - you’ll need to have a current license key to run these (or be in an active trial period). If you encounter any issues while using a beta, you can just install whatever version you were using before, or grab the current released version from the Trial/Download page.
Funny moment with 3D engraving. If you put cleaning layers first and give them the characteristics of engraving and not cleaning, then the 3D model will be engraved with auto-rotation of the angle. The cleaning mode cleans only the layer that was engraved; for good 3D it is necessary to clean only the very first layer of the 3D model. 3D engraving is very interesting for many customers. What they are need: auto-rotate angle in burn layers, cleaning full of 3d model(first layer). if it possible polishing layer in end of model. Thank you for your perfect software.
I have an issue with this beta release: you only provide an installer. It doesn’t ask where to install the software, and complains there is LB instance running, so clearly it will replace the existing copy.
This means we cannot test the beta and keep the official, stable version?
Probably OK as I expect the beta to be stable enough to use it for hobby work, but still a bit scary…
On Mac OS I am asked if I want to replace or install parallel to the existing version. On a daily basis, I have only needed to roll back a version a few times, it takes 2-3 minutes. I am a “full time” beta user.
Same here on my Mac, so I opted to install 1.5 alongside the previous. Of course, I haven’t used the previous version! My workshop laptop is still the previous 1.4 version and I have had no problem with loading and running v1.5 files.
I have to say that 1.5 has some super new features, especially the rulers and the improved radius tool.
You can have and run both versions on a single Windows box with a little effort on your part. Yes, the installer is intended to assist the users that may not be familiar with the options available. LightBurn is placed in the Applications folder, and that’s where this install will look for the required resources.
You also have the option to copy the LightBurn folder to a new location and run from there. In my case, I have a folder in applications named ‘LightBurn-test’ where I run beta and another folder, using the installer to create, named as LightBurn, where I run the current release. Both work as expected, allowing as you’d like.
Find the original program folder (probably somewhere in C:\Program Files or C:\Program Files (x86)) and copy it somewhere else. (note: I find editing the folder name is helpful to manage this)
Install the new version.
Run the old version from the folder you copied it to.
I flip or invert this and keep the public release in the LightBurn folder, while moving the beta to the ‘LightBurn-test’ folder. While a bit more to manage while testing new releases, I find it works a treat.
Hello dear LB team,
what about the 25-point calibration for galvo systems? I have seen that there is already a 9-point in the beta. That is already very good! Unfortunately, 9-point is not enough if you need dimensionally accurate results over the entire work surface. The lack of this function has been known at LB for over a year and your developers wanted to work on it.
Our update license expires in 4 weeks and we would like to extend it. Unfortunately, we cannot work with LB if our galvo lasers cannot be calibrated. Therefore an extension makes no sense.
Please let us know when we can expect a 25-point calibration.
I’m noticing a potential gap in material height handling specific to Camera Alignment for the Polar.
Z-axis was configured as described in Changelog.
When in the Camera Alignment wizard for the target alignment printing, setting Material Height to any value prior to burning alignment targets does not seem to result in focus adjustment. I did not have a lot of time with the machine to test various scenarios so apologize for lack of detail. But in any case, material height seemed to make no difference to focus. I would expect the material height value to dictate the z-axis distance required for focus and dynamically shift prior to the start of the burn.
If you use lenses with a large field, the non-linearity of the optics + scanners is high enough not to get into the holes inside the steel rectangular plate, also if you want to engrave the ruler. In some Russian software, we use more than 25x25 points. The passing question is whether the cleaning mode in 3D engraving will be fixed. You only need to clean the entire model, not individual layers, otherwise it is not logical
unfortunately this is not true! A 25-point cor file from EzCad can be imported, but it will NOT be executed in LB. This issue is already known in your internal beta forum. I don’t understand why this is mentioned here as a solution?
Please explain to us how YOU create a 25-point Cor file in EzCad that will work.
Tried it also but seems like LB is ignoring the 25 point files. In the BETA Galvo forum i uploaded a 25-point.cor and all the calibrations programs ezcad provides.
In the past LB made a popup that it cannot read the file or that the file is broken. Now no popup apperas but also no changes are made when loading the 25point.cor.
If you have a 150mm field and put out an array with 15x10mm rectangles they wont be accurate all over the field with the 9-point correction. This is very frustrating if you use a arcylic template from a dxf file. The output wont match the dxf file contents all over the field, especially when you use arrays for bulk marking.