So, I have to ask again: when is LightBurn actually going to get true nesting?
Users have been asking for this for years, and the response has repeatedly been that it’s being worked on, other things have higher priority, or we’re given workarounds that frankly aren’t a substitute for real nesting.
Now MillMage comes out, and true nesting is already there and being promoted as a feature. If LightBurn can develop and implement true nesting in a brand-new piece of software, why has it still not been implemented in LightBurn—the software that built the company and that so many of us have supported for years?
It’s pretty frustrating to see a long-requested LightBurn feature apparently become a priority somewhere else first. So, once again: when can LightBurn users realistically expect true nesting?
I’ve been running a full-size commercial CNC—not a homemade machine—for over 25 years, so I know firsthand just how valuable true nesting can be.
What has always perplexed me is that my 25-year-old Cadlink SignLab 6 has excellent true nesting. Considering how far software and computing power have advanced since then, I would have expected LightBurn to have implemented comparable true nesting several years ago. It’s difficult to understand why something that worked so well in software from 25 years ago is still missing today.
Did CadLink share the source code? If not, then it has to be figured out all over again. “True Nesting” is not an easy task. Lightburn does not have development priority over MillMage, I would think. The fact that it is even in MillMage is a good sign, right?
I understand that CadLink didn’t hand LightBurn the source code, and I’m certainly not suggesting they can just copy 25-year-old code and drop it in. My point is that true nesting is not some new or unproven concept. Software was accomplishing it very effectively 25 years ago, with far less computing power and far fewer development tools than are available today.
What frustrates me is that LightBurn users have been asking for true nesting for years and have repeatedly been told it’s being worked on or that other things have taken priority. Then MillMage comes along and true nesting is apparently important enough to be included there. I agree that its existence in MillMage is a good sign, but it also reinforces my question: if the LightBurn team has now solved the problem for MillMage, why has it remained unavailable to the much larger LightBurn user base that has been requesting it for so long?
I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m saying that after this many years, “it’s difficult” becomes a less satisfying answer—especially now that they’ve demonstrated they can do it.
At this point, it sounds like true nesting is coming to LightBurn, and I’m very happy to hear that. I’ve been using LightBurn for years and think it’s excellent software, so this was never meant as a knock on the program or the developers. I was simply perplexed as to why such a useful feature had taken so long to make its way into LightBurn. If it’s coming, that answers my question, and I’m perfectly happy to leave it there.
I would think so too, but because MillMage is brand new, maybe they are using it as a testing ground. Less shouting if it has issues there. What we do not have access to is the distribution of programming skills.
I’m glad to see true nesting added to LightBurn, but I’m disappointed that the nesting container is still limited to a rectangle. A major reason I have been requesting true nesting for the past few years is the ability to make efficient use of partially used sheets and irregularly shaped scraps. Since True Nest already evaluates the actual vector contours of the objects being arranged, it seems reasonable that any selected closed vector could also define the usable material boundary rather than requiring a rectangle. My approximately 25-year-old SignLab software can nest objects within an irregularly shaped vector boundary, so this is not a new or impractical concept. Is support for irregular containers—including concave outlines—planned for a future LightBurn release? For many production users, recovering usable material from odd-shaped remnants is at least as important as optimizing the layout on a new rectangular sheet.
I understand that working from full sheets may be the most efficient approach in your production environment, but that doesn’t mean irregular-material nesting isn’t valuable in other workflows. In fact, remnant nesting and remnant management are established features in higher-end dedicated nesting systems such as SigmaNEST and ProNest. Those programs recognize that throughput and material recovery are separate considerations: full-sheet nesting may be best for a large production run, while nesting within an irregular remnant makes it practical to recover expensive material for smaller jobs. I probably have thousands of dollars’ worth of usable acrylic remnants that remain on the shelf because manually arranging parts within each irregular area takes more time than it is worth. If the software could treat any closed vector as the available material boundary, those remnants could be used efficiently without sacrificing production time. My roughly 25-year-old SignLab software can already nest within irregular vector boundaries, so this is neither an unusual request nor a novel production concept. Full-sheet nesting and remnant nesting both have legitimate uses; one does not eliminate the value of the other.
I think my point is being misunderstood. I was not comparing LightBurn’s price or overall capabilities to $10,000–$20,000 industrial software, nor was I suggesting that LightBurn reproduce everything those systems do. I mentioned programs such as SigmaNEST and ProNest only because their remnant-nesting features demonstrate that nesting within irregular material has recognized production value. A camera is not necessary for the use I am describing—the user could trace or draw the remnant’s outline, retain the vector outline left from a previous job, or otherwise provide a closed vector as the nesting boundary. The software would simply arrange the parts within that defined shape.
My approximately 25-year-old SignLab software already nests within an irregular vector boundary, so the capability is not limited exclusively to modern $10,000 industrial systems. Manually arranging a few simple parts on a known sheet is certainly manageable, but efficiently fitting numerous complex shapes into irregular remnants is exactly the repetitive calculation nesting software is intended to perform. I have a substantial amount of usable acrylic that remains on the shelf because manually optimizing every remnant takes more time than it is worth. I understand that this feature may not benefit every user or become LightBurn’s highest development priority, but that is different from saying the use case has little or no value. My original question was simply whether LightBurn intends eventually to allow True Nest to accept an arbitrary closed vector as the material boundary rather than limiting that boundary to a rectangle.
As for arbitrary sheet shape nesting, we have discussed it for sure. It’s even more complicated than the current implementation and we don’t have a specific roadmap for it beyond “yes we realize it would be useful, but we just finished true nest, so we will see how that goes.
You’ve made it clear that this feature would not be useful in your workflow, and that’s perfectly fine. I do have a camera, as do many people using lasers seriously in a production environment, so defining the remaining material would not be a significant burden. Even without one, tracing a boundary once is far less work than repeatedly nesting parts by hand—or leaving expensive material unused. I started this thread primarily to ask LightBurn whether arbitrary-shape nesting is possible or planned, and Joe has now answered that question. I’m not sure what is gained by continuing to argue against an optional capability simply because you personally would not use it.
I didn’t change any definition or move any goalposts. My original post asked LightBurn when true nesting would be added; it neither defined the term nor limited the material boundary to a rectangle. After seeing the actual implementation, I asked a straightforward follow-up question about one of its limitations. That is called evaluating a feature, not moving the goalposts.
I came here to ask LightBurn a question, and Joe answered it directly and professionally. You, meanwhile, have repeatedly stated that the capability has no value to you, yet you continue inserting yourself as though your workflow should determine what is useful to everyone else. Now you’re inventing positions I never took so you can accuse me of changing them. If the feature doesn’t interest you, perhaps the most productive contribution would be to stop trying to derail a question that was never directed at you in the first place.
