xTool Creative Space vs Lightburn - identical settings, Lightburn result terrible :(

LightBurn Software Questions
1

Burning a baby image for a customer onto white ceramic tile using TiO2.
Setup in xTool Creative Space:
Image: Stucki, 10mm/s, 100% power, 100lpcm, 1 pass
Image is very clean and graphics (text and vector art), very black and crisp.

XCS
XCS735Ă—199 27.2 KB

Setup in Lightburn:
Image: Stucki, 10mm/s, 100% power, 318lpi, 1 pass
Image is very grainy and graphics (text and hearts), are not crisp and vary from grey to black.

Lightburn
Lightburn762Ă—193 43.1 KB

I MUCH prefer to use Lightburn - what do I need to do to fix the result?
Please let me know what other info is needed.
Thanks!

2

I may be thinking of this incorrectly but wouldn’t 100 lpcm be equal to 254 lpi, not 318?

Also, these don’t look like the same design. Are you comparing apples to apples?

3

Thank you for the reply.
Yes, 254lpi would be the direct translation from lpcm to lpi. This is the only difference, and I hadn’t noticed I’d forgotten to change that till I wrote this up. Otherwise, the photo is the identical photo, the text in Lightburn is Ariel with offset fill, the closest match to the text used in XCS. Both are using vector art for the hearts (not shown in the images above.
Any idea why the face is so grainy on the LB image? Would the higher 318lpi cause that? Any suggestion on why the filled text in the LB image isn’t a solid black?
Thank you for your help !

4

Let me ask this
Between Lightburn and Xtool software, what is the difference in run time on the two engraves, roughly speaking?

The diference is too massive in “quality” to be even close to be the same(ish) Gcode

5

both were ~30ish minutes. give or take 3-5 minutes.

6

An interesting difference, in XCS it does everything line by line bi-directional. In LB, it does the text and graphics by following the shape and repeating the shape smaller and smaller till it’s filled in.
I’m most stunned by the quality difference in the image and want to get that same quality in LB. The XCS software is very difficult to design in and slows waaay down when manipulating multiple images.

7

Have you tried exporting both gcodes and compare?
How to in XCS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcl_HifMryA&list=PLybe2Md_qVs_u3c2P5pkemhnjYhfwUKLh&index=5

8

offset Fill?i meant

If you export the XCS Gcode, you can OPEN it in lightburn and see what the main difference is and vice versa i think.

9

Interesting. I’ll try this once the XCS run is done (~1 hour to go).

10

Yes, the text in LB was done offset fill (99% sure). I’ll check again once the XCS job finishes… making a list of things to check now :slight_smile:

11

The lastest version of XCS no longer has the gear icon next to the device in the upper right corner - it’s now a link to xTool Support.
Also, Working Parameters is no longer an option - Just General and Developer Mode. Under General, the closest I see is “Custom parameter settings” Import/Export. I’ve exported this but have no idea how to read a .json file.
Nowhere else could I find a gcode export option.

Verified text is indeed offset fill. Image is set to 318dpi, I can back that down to 254 if it’ll make a difference.
Here’s the image and layer settings:

Screenshot 2024-01-05 144147
Screenshot 2024-01-05 144147963Ă—388 167 KB

Screenshot 2024-01-05 144207

Thanks again for your help, time and suggestions.

Hmm… looking at the layer settings I mis-spoke in the original post. The XCS and light burn settings match but are:
Screenshot 2024-01-05 144945

12

Try pulling the temp file from the TF Card. That may store the g-code from the last job.

1 Like
13

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.