Right? I mean for fucksakes how bout we keep our $10000 product up to date? It’s like they didn’t even make the simplest least energetic effort to make a decent operating system. Even the most basic slicer programs for 3D printers were fantastic when this thing was designed. I’m just at a loss to understand that disconnect.
Good morning!
It’s been 135 days since the initial list of feedback ideas.
I work in a high-mix, low volume shop where I get to do a lot of really fun prototypes and I have the freedom to try new and different things. The WAZER was supposed to add to this list. Due to it’s myriad limitations, it is now our last-ditch machine if all else fails.
Here’s a good example. I had a customer come to me and ask if I could cut zirconia ceramic for a part modification. I said, “I can give it a try, why not?” I had no idea it would be a difficult as it was. The strongest endmills I had were just ground away like chalk. Our laser is a Trotec speedy 360 CO2 laser, so I didn’t even try it on there. So, I filled up the WAZER and gave it a whirl. Lo and behold, it actually made a mark. However, I had to tweak the program so many times. Each time I did this, that meant either leaving the program up on my browser or repeating the insanity of creating a whole new program every time.
When you save a file in a slicer program for a 3d printer, it saves it (program dependent) as a .3mf that saves everything about that program. Location, temperature, speeds, etc. When you save a laser cut file, it outputs as a plate file specific to that laser that saves everything: position, wavelength, power, speed, etc.
This limitation on the WAZER is the absolute deal breaker for me. All the other things are miniscule compared to this lack of a save feature.
Please tell me that after almost 4 and a half months, some progress has been made to improve this software in some way. Any news is better than no word at all.
All: remember, we can’t hold this person personally accountable for this. It’s the company, not the individual responsible for the forums, who is at fault for this unprofessional, uneducated mess of a product. Unless this person hasn’t reported any of this to the company…
3 Likes
Hey Aaron! Thanks for your patience. The Dev. team has been working on implementing some of the WAM feedback shared recently but I cannot say for certain if one of the tasks/goals is the “Save Template” feedback.
Your example is interesting and I would like to learn more about the issue in particular you ran into. What issues were you running into that required the gcode to be tweaked so many times?
With the move origin, cut-rate testing, restart cut, and gcode visualtization tool on https://ncviewer.com/ I find that my workflow is close to a one-and-done gcode file that is ready to cut on experimental materials.
My goal right now is to learn more about your set-up and application further so I can provide a short-term solution around the headaches you are running into with WAM.
- What happened during the test cut on your zirconia ceramic?
- What was changed in WAM during the many different iterations you mentioned?
So, it wasn’t the Gcode that needed tweaking, it was the feeds and speeds of the cutting.
I do use a gcode viewer for verification of the files, but again, it’s about the lack of saving the project as a file that saves location and other settings. Similar to using a .3mf file on most modern slicers. When saved as that file format, you can just pull up the file and all your settings are there. No need to keep any record or sort thru and manually find the code.
With the first few cuts, I didn’t know what pierce time to use, so I had to change that and slow down the feed. It was a long process. After finally getting the pierce right, I figured the cut would be fine. But the garnet collection is not the most consistent at such a slow feed, so there were places where the cut was not complete. So I had to reload it into WAM and start again with a slower feed. I got so fed up at some point, I just kept rerunning the same file to cut thru this material. My goal was to get a slot thru, not worry about aesthetics.
Anyway, those updates to this software are incredibly important to the user. How many people are in charge of this project?
1 Like
Give me a fucking break. I have complained about WAM for over a year giving very specific examples of bugs and details about how horrible the interface is and on an on. Why are you acting like this is a new complaint? WAM absolutely sucks and as the poster said it is an insult to have to deal with this piece of crap when the most basic 3D printer comes with better software for free. I have contacted Wazer over and over suggesting that they hire someone competent to write decent software if there is no ability in house. I have three laser engravers and use Light Burn which is the exact opposite of WAM. It works exceedingly well and has a multitude of useful features. There is very little difference in the requirements of a program to make gcode for a waterjet vs a laser engraver. Both are XY machines with a couple of other ins and outs. Not rocket science.
After being told over an d over that my warranty would be voided if I use another program to make gcode for the Wazer, there was suddenly a reversal on this policy. I bought Fusion 360 which has a plugin for Wazer. I have not had the time to learn Fusion very well and may never have the time. I did write up a basic cheap sheet as to how to import DXF into Fusion and to create gcode for the Wazer. I really do not want to spend the time to learn all this additional stuff which I will not remember unless I use it often, The frustration of running the Wazer is so high that I do not consider it a high priority to to learn this additional material since the firmware still sucks so much that running the Wazer is avoided by me most of the time. The few times I use the Wazer I realize that it would have been faster to make the part by hand.
Why did you market this machine with no ability to provide decent software and firmware? Do you think we are so stupid that we don’t notice what crap you have provided?
The basic machine is amazing in terms of the capabilities it can provide but the frustration level is too high due to the horrible software and firmware.
I am getting really tired of bugging you about various problems since it seems there is no mechanism to ever fix anything.
I agree with everything you say except calling WAM a dog of a program. My dogs could write better software. I have been complaining about WAM and the horrible firmware that runs the machine and feel like I am pissing in the wind. I would like to talk to another person who was fucked by Wazer. my phone number is four two five seven nine one zero three zero nine. you can also email me to set up a phone call at spencer(at sign here)poodlex (dotcom here)i am getting close to tossing the whole bunch of control crap and setting up my Wazer with a Masso controller. How many years has Wazer support been jerking you around?
there is no one in charge of software development or bug fixing. all they have is a marketing team and a “support team” that does nothing other than make excuses.
i provide better support to the people worldwide who use my free programs.
it bugs me when they refer to the “development team” as there is none.
Thanks for the clarification - it’s appreciated!
When cutting an unknown material there are a few different solutions:
- A new custom material setting. (This will result in the most efficient cut method but takes some time and scrap material to prep. If cutting this custom material more than once, I recommend this method) By utilizing the cut rate testing, this program will help the operator to identify the necessary pierce time and feed-rate for a material not in the WAM database. A detailed guide for creating a custom material can be found in the link below.
(Testing a New Material and Creating a New WAM Entry — WAZER Support | The First Desktop Waterjet.)
- Manual Feed-rate Override. (This will result in the quickest turnaround but requires close attention and some guess work. I only recommend this if in a rush or playing with an unknown material on a one-off job.) You can adjust the feed-rate of the WAZER manually in the middle of a job. Once the cut file has begun and the pierce is completed, press up or down on the direction pad to manually adjust the feed rate. This requires that the original material selected is close in composition or is close to the original pierce time needed for the custom material. If you are confident in the pierce time, manually adjusting the feed-rate afterwards will help to cut a custom material but it may result in some inefficient quality or abrasive usage.
*Please note that the manual feed rate is adjusted only for the current cut, and if the job is performed again it will default back to 100%
I hope these solutions are applicable to your set-up. If that is not the case, please let me know immediately.
1 Like
i am not going to go through the torture to create a new material. the speed override changed in the middle of a cut. that is not OK. you should have a lot more materials on your list. it is amazing that you have not added anything in years.
the repeat cut would be useful if it could be used to repeat a new example of the cut without homing and answering the dumb questions again.
Truly glad to see that Wazer has taken the community bug requests and software features seriously and have provided us with timelines and specific plans for implementing them.
1 Like
What about a cooperation between WAZER and Lightburn??
They are considering giving support, please VOTE here
Don’t worry they said it will not be never that they fix this poopie and in fact they seem to be working on it because WAM has gotten even worse. Now there are no automatic tabs placed and no ability to add them. Great tabs were so screweded up I guess the solution was to just get rid of them and force the user to make their own. It about time that Wazer open sourced their garbage software and firmware so competent people can fix it. What they have is probably just a bunch of stolen software hacked togeher and never tested. I recently found out that the control board is just a smoothieboard that thousands know how to use except Wazer. How about open sourcing or I think I v=can find a lawyer to start a class action suit.
Hi Spencoid,
If not able to add tabs or none are placed automatically it is likely due to the file imported into WAM. For example, if the circuit is not a closed loop. Do you mind sharing the file you are seeing the tab issue with?
So I have been working on getting my Wazer to work with LightBurn. Using the custom GCode device and converted the materials library to a LightBurn library. The machine can be imported in the device’s menu and the library in the libraries panel.
I am still working on finetuning this but so far it’s working great!
GCode generated with LightBurn:
(Rectangle with lead in)
M1403
M1405 X0.00 Y-0.00
M1406 X1.00 Y-10.00
M1407 S1.0
M1410 1.5
M1411 LightBurn
M1412 Gcode
G00 G17 G40 G21 G54
G90
G4 S1.
M9
G4 S1.
M5
G4 S1.
G0 X36.817Y-14.817
M3
M8
G4 S3.
G1 X37.142Y-14.833F89.16
G1 X37.458Y-14.882
G1 X37.763Y-14.96
G1 X38.056Y-15.067
G1 X38.334Y-15.201
G1 X38.597Y-15.361
G1 X38.842Y-15.544
G1 X39.068Y-15.749
G1 X39.273Y-15.975
G1 X39.456Y-16.22
G1 X39.616Y-16.483
G1 X39.75Y-16.761
G1 X39.857Y-17.053
G1 X39.935Y-17.358
G1 X39.984Y-17.675
G1 X40Y-18
G1 Y-60
G1 X102
G1 Y-18
G1 X40
G4 S1.
M9
G4 S1.
M5
G4 S1.
G90
M1413 00:00:00
M1404
1 Like
Haven’t read through all comments, but what I have read, I agree with. I wonder if the inability to save the reopen cut files is making the editing of files tediously slow?
I am wondering if folks keep their file open in WAM until the file cuts, so that adjustments can be make to them. I notice that the creation of gcode files in WAM is much quicker when I do them in the overnight hours (in the US). The inefficiencies of the program seem to be compounding and strangling itself.
You need a serious software development team, or piggyback on an established program.
@Alex and any one else part of the wazer team, see how nice and clean the lightburn generated Gcode is? this is how it should look, not the crap your software spits out. I’ve given up on your company completely and will continue to make sure none of my contacts think about you as a solution. Nothing we talk about gets fixed, all you guys do is lead us on with these fake promises and come up with work arounds that require your consumer to do extra work. Its just comical at this point, just tell your consumers the truth instead of acting like you have this whole software dev team working on the issues the entire time. You would have kept a lot more respect in the eyes of your consumers instead of treating us like idiots who cant even be trusted to look at the generated gcode without voiding warranty. Seems like half the people on this page understand your system better than you guys do and instead of working with us and implementing fixes, you brush it off like none of it matters.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t that be amazing. A devolvement team.
Hi @Tyler5883 and peers,
The LightBurn gcode is clean defined by smaller size or less lines when compared to the WAM gcode. However, there are a few serious concerns when using this post and running this gcode on a WAZER:
- No corner compensation. This will result in sharp points and imperfections on the bottom side of the part. ie the tail cutting characteristics of the water-jet. This will be particularly worse with thicker materials and can even lead to uncut paths. (On thin or soft materials this will be less prevalent.)
- To correct the flaw in #1 the cut speed will have to be reduced for all of the lines of code resulting in longer cut times and more abrasive consumption. For example, thicker materials can require a progressive decrease in speed up to 40% at 90 degree angles. These figures will vary drastically depending on the radius or sharp angle of the cut-path. WAM transitions the speed around all curves automatically and speeds up when possible for the most efficient cutting.
- Be mindful to not over-compensate the slow down in point #2. Too slow of a cut-rate will put more than average wear on the cut bed, cutting head, and tank bottom for the same cut results.
- Pausing the cut using this gcode will result in a number of unintended uncut portions and lost features at each pause/resume along the path. This is due to the clean gcode structure and how the WAZER controller processes it. At the end of the day, the CAM software and controller firmware needs to work in tandem.
We would be happy to work with LightBurn on getting the concerns above mitigated however this likely requires fundamental coding re-write and cannot be done in just modifying the post-processor.
On the bright side, the current post has some small workflow hiccups that could be improved for the operator workflow right now. All of these can likely be corrected within the LightBurn post-processor:
- There is no tab along the cut-path. This could be operator’s choice but running without a tab is still a risk. (Maybe tab creation can be enabled within LightBurn)
- The file prep menu after selecting the gcode is missing the material, thickness, and cut time. This information is important for abrasive and cost estimates during the set-up workflow. (Corrections to gcode file header will solve this)
- The “Check Cut Extents” feature at the end of the prep menu currently does not work. (Again, corrections to the header will solve this)
All of these considerations are taken into account and are automatically handled within WAM, along with dozens of other requirements built into the software. In order to accomplish all of these features more lines of gcode are needed. These additional lines have no functional downside, a slightly larger file size (80KB), and more steps have no impact on the controller.
In the example below, if you study the code line by line you will notice the considerations discussed above.
;-------------------------------Cut file parameters------------------------
; Input file name : 62x42mm-rect.svg
; File rotation : 0 File scale : 1
; Material name : Brass
; Material thickness : 0.125 in
; Cut path : Outside
; Cut quality : mediumRate
; Raw Material width : 66.47mm
; Raw Material height : 44.42mm
;-------------------------------Do Not modify the Gcode file---------------
G90
G21
M1403
M1405 X38.94 Y-37.20
M1406 X105.41 Y-81.62
M1407 S35.0
M1410 1.6; Generated on Wam
M1411 Brass
M1412 0.125 in
G0 X40.29 Y-37.20
M3
M8
G4 S35.
G1 X40.31 Y-37.45 F20.32
G1 X40.38 Y-37.70 F17.27
G1 X40.48 Y-37.93 F14.22
G1 X40.63 Y-38.14
G1 X40.81 Y-38.32 F15.24
G1 X41.02 Y-38.46 F14.22
G1 X41.25 Y-38.57
G1 X41.49 Y-38.63
G1 X41.74 Y-38.66
G1 X42.58 Y-38.66
G1 X43.42 Y-38.66
G1 X44.26 Y-38.66
G1 X45.10 Y-38.66
G1 X45.94 Y-38.66
G1 X46.78 Y-38.66
G1 X47.62 Y-38.66
G1 X48.46 Y-38.66
G1 X49.30 Y-38.66
G1 X50.13 Y-38.66
G1 X50.97 Y-38.66
G1 X51.81 Y-38.66
G1 X52.65 Y-38.66
G1 X53.49 Y-38.66
G1 X54.33 Y-38.66
G1 X55.17 Y-38.66
G1 X56.01 Y-38.66
G1 X56.85 Y-38.66
G1 X57.68 Y-38.66
G1 X58.52 Y-38.66
G1 X59.36 Y-38.66
G1 X60.20 Y-38.66
G1 X61.04 Y-38.66
G1 X61.88 Y-38.66
G1 X62.72 Y-38.66
G1 X63.56 Y-38.66
G1 X64.40 Y-38.66
G1 X65.23 Y-38.66
G1 X66.07 Y-38.66
G1 X66.91 Y-38.66
G1 X67.75 Y-38.66
G1 X68.59 Y-38.66
G1 X69.43 Y-38.66
G1 X70.27 Y-38.66
G1 X71.11 Y-38.66
G1 X71.88 Y-38.66
G1 X76.88 Y-38.66 F16.26
G1 X81.88 Y-38.66 F18.29
G1 X86.88 Y-38.66 F20.32
G1 X91.88 Y-38.66
G1 X96.88 Y-38.66 F17.27
G1 X101.88 Y-38.66 F14.22
G1 X103.07 Y-38.66
G1 X103.22 Y-38.80
G1 X103.36 Y-38.94
G1 X103.36 Y-60.14 F17.27
G1 X103.36 Y-65.14 F20.32
G1 X103.36 Y-70.14
G1 X103.36 Y-75.14 F17.27
G1 X103.36 Y-80.14 F14.22
G1 X103.36 Y-81.34
G1 X103.22 Y-81.48
G1 X103.07 Y-81.62
G1 X98.07 Y-81.62 F17.27
G1 X93.07 Y-81.62 F20.32
G1 X88.07 Y-81.62
G1 X83.07 Y-81.62
G1 X78.07 Y-81.62
G1 X73.07 Y-81.62
G1 X71.88 Y-81.62 F19.30
G1 X66.88 Y-81.62 F20.32
G1 X61.88 Y-81.62
G1 X56.88 Y-81.62
G1 X51.88 Y-81.62
G1 X46.88 Y-81.62 F17.27
G1 X41.88 Y-81.62 F14.22
G1 X40.68 Y-81.62
G1 X40.54 Y-81.48
G1 X40.40 Y-81.34
G1 X40.40 Y-76.34 F17.27
G1 X40.40 Y-71.34 F20.32
G1 X40.40 Y-66.34
G1 X40.40 Y-61.34 F15.24
G1 X40.40 Y-60.14 F10.16
G1 X40.40 Y-40.34
G4 S5.
M9
G4 S1.
M5
G4 S1.
M1413 00:13:38
M1404
1 Like
Good morning @Alex ,
After nearly 7 months (206 days to be exact), has there been any development to improve WAM?
Keep in mind that my company has exactly one software developer, and he has already released two updates for our in-house job tracking software. He works alone on this, and he also has to manage HR and payroll. And he only works part time for our company.
In WAM, I have seen no updates or improvements for any of the lengthy list we created for you.
Any update would be amazing. A truthful, open, honest, unadulterated, candid one would be even better.
Thanks!
1 Like