Has there ever been a version of the software called "Snapmaker Luban" that didn't have any issues?

Has there ever been a version of the software called “Snapmaker Luban” that didn’t have any issues?

I have been a dedicated user of Snapmaker since I purchased the Snapmaker Original (1.0) through Kickstarter. From Snapmaker 2.0 onward, the official software switched to Snapmaker Luban, and from that moment, I stopped using Snapmaker Luban.

Users who have been using Snapmaker for a long time and have a certain level of knowledge are aware of the issues with Snapmaker Luban and often use it with the assumption that it is “unreliable.”

Unfortunately, new users who are unaware of the significant problems with Snapmaker Luban end up using it and encounter various troubles.

Has there ever been a version of Snapmaker Luban without issues? As far as I know, each release introduces new problems, and there are always reports in the forums.

Long-time users avoid using Snapmaker Luban and instead:

  • Use Ultimaker Cura or other software for 3D printing.
  • Use LightBurn for laser engraving.
  • Use Autodesk Fusion 360 combined with a GitHub post-processor for CNC machining.

It’s inevitable that Snapmaker Luban has issues, but I believe using alternative software is better than facing the uncertainty and potential impacts on projects with each new release of Snapmaker Luban.

Past releases have shown that fixing bugs often introduces new bugs in previously functional features, requiring repeated fixes.

Well, it doesn’t bother me since I don’t use Snapmaker Luban…

However, new Snapmaker users probably trust Snapmaker Luban :frowning:

If there has ever been a version of Snapmaker Luban without any issues, please let me know. I might consider using it again after several years.


So. You do not use luban since years but you blame the releases since then?
What’s your point here? Just flaming ?

Luban has obviously some bugs, but all in all in is an usable software for beginners with less requirements.

So, use your additional software but keep us alone with threads like “I do not use it but i heard for this and that”. Especially from an old member it is unworthy. My opinion.

And for sure, when you use expert tools, keep using them. Luban is beginner friendly and snapmaker provides templates for other these other tools.

"Trying to provoke a controversy? " That’s amusing.

Well, it’s almost like you’re saying that the countermeasures and improvements that emerged from various trials a few years ago are meaningless.

If veteran users have no value, then that’s fine.

At the moment you wrote this article, your article is already old too.

I suppose there is no software beyond a certain complexity in the world that has no issues. And Luban is no exception. I personally feel that Snapmaker in the beginning had a very bad quality control, and that this has somewhat improved.

My main reason to use Cura, Prusa Slicer, Lightburn, Fusion 360 and other Non-Luban tools to generate my GCode is that these tools offer more functionality, more flexibility and have a stronger community or a more professional backing. This comes at the price of more complexity. Luban tries to hide some of this complexity from the users, addressing beginners and allowing them to quickly have success. That they several times introduced problems that were then especially bothering and annoying these beginners is - lets say - less than optimal :slight_smile:

That said: I can see Luban evolving, and it offers by now even more features for users that want to have the option of digging deep - and if they continue to develop, Luban may become the go-to-Software for me at some point. Having dialled-in profiles optimized for the machine is something that adds a lot of value!

1 Like

Exactly. Currently, “Snapmaker Luban” is unreliable, and Snapmaker needs to understand that users are frustrated with the frequent bugs that make it difficult to use with confidence. Knowing this, I hope Snapmaker will develop a more user-friendly and reliable “Snapmaker Luban,” including for multi-axis machining.

As you mentioned, the Snapmaker 2.0 is a complex machine due to its multifunctional nature, which results in a complicated system with many management elements.

Overcoming these issues could lead to an excellent version of Luban that doesn’t require specialized tools. However, it’s crucial to address the current shortcomings to achieve this. Unfortunately, it seems like they are dismissing feedback from long-time users.

Some people fail to realize that the present builds on the past, and learning from failures can lead to significant advancements. In this sense, past experiences are valuable.

I believe Snapmaker has the potential for further development and growth.

I only use Luban for quick laser jobs and quick/4-axis CNC jobs. Especially for 4-axis CNC jobs it’s serviceable but not great. Really wish they would put more R&D into it. Can’t remember the last time I used it to slice a model, always used PrusaSlicer.

In my opinion, they should not have gone the “roll your own” route. If they would just supply good profiles for Cura/PrusaSlicer, Lightburn, and Fusion 360, they wouldn’t have to spend so much time and effort re-inventing the wheel.

1 Like

You couldn’t be more wrong. That would definitely scare off many potential buyers. Get the SM home then what, start trying to figure out Cura/Lightburn/F360? GOOD LUCK!! They have to have some pack-in app to get out the gate and Luban works perfectly fine for many people.

So push that task onto the consumer. Right…

No one is forcing anyone to use Luban. You’re free to use Cura/Lightburn/F360. Choice is a GOOD thing.

Regarding Lightburn and F360, fair enough. Cura however is arguably even easier than Luban given the vast amount of users and tutorials out there.

Choice is great! However I do think the more advanced features, like 4-axis CNC, are seriously underdeveloped by Snapmaker. For 3-axis CNC and laser it’s easy enough for more advanced users to start using more capable software. For 4-axis CNC you are pretty much locked to the “meh” Luban implementation.

Scaring off potential buyers goes two ways. Scaring off new, unexperienced users with complicated interfaces is bad of course, but if you just focus on new users you’ll slowly start losing your more experienced userbase, as well as lose the interest of experienced users looking for a new machine.

So in a roundabout way, you’re saying the same thing. Advanced users are free to choose advanced software tools. Lack of Luban would scare off new users, but including Luban is not going to scare off advanced users. So i don’t understand your point.

The 4-axis CNC implementation of Luban is not very good. They do not have profiles/integrations for more capable software packages, so they severely limit choice for experienced users. For Lightburn, integration also took a long time, with little to no input from Snapmaker themselves. It was up to the customers to implement support for the camera.

Simply including Luban is not going to scare off advanced users. What might scare off advanced users is dedicating the majority of your (software) time and resources to develop a very basic software package that does not have flawless integration with your hardware.

Haha, that’s a huge (and flawed) hypothesis. That’s like saying Apple employees too many emoji designers and not enough software engineers. One has nothing to do with the other.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. If you’re implying there’s no tight coupling between hardware and software I don’t know what to tell you.

No, I’m saying if Snapmaker wanted to support 3rd party integration more closely themselves they would. You’re saying they don’t because they’re too busy working in Luban. Do you have proof to back that statement. Considering Luban is open source, your argument falls apart even more so.

The Problem of 4th Axis alternatives is: there are no free ones.
So what should snapmaker do to Support 4 Axis in Fusion or lightburn? Fusion has 4 Axis Support, in the pay Version. Not Sure snapmaker Rotary works with it, but there would be anyway no Users who will PayPal for that. And in luban the 4 Axis works okay. What’s really missing is engraving cones. But there will be improvements forever…

They are a commercial company, so they obviously budget out the different departments that work on the product.

Just because something is open-source does not mean you can reduce your amount of software engineers. Even if the community contributes a lot, you have a significant increase of PRs that need to be approved by your own people. However this is not the case for Snapmaker. Just looking at their Luban repository, by far the most commits over the last year were made by Snapmaker employees. So the open-source argument is not very strong.

Of course I cannot prove anything on paper as I do not have insight in Snapmakers financial record. Looking at the software they have available on GitHub: again it’s serviceable but not at the same quality level as their hardware. For sure they could spend big and pull open a can of software engineers and make Luban better than anything else in the market, but they don’t.

Ideally, the Luban integration should be top-notch so no one even needs to look at third-party solutions. It’s not exactly rocket science, as just adding proper multi-pass support would make a world of difference. They don’t even need to spend time figuring out the details, customers already did it for them nearly 3 years ago: Multi-Pass Rotary Guide.

Unfortunately this is not good enough: Luban 4th axis milling is cool! And dumb... And dangerous! - So the potential is definitely there, and if they’d come up with proper 4-axis this would be my first Luban-is-it workload. And I’d be so happy, because it is not only that the commercial 4-axis CAMs are not free - they are even prohibitively expensive! DeskProto is the only software I’ve found yet I’d say is hobbyist affordable, but their 4-axis is very limited.

1 Like

Definitely understand the frustrations with using Luban, I had the same frustrations with 3D printing using 4.12. However coding is a complex beast and bugs are often introduced when trying to resolve bugs. What I’ve found over the years is if there is a bug, I can find it.
But essentially remember Snapmaker is a hardware company.

I have found snapmaker.support team are very receptive, so at least they try, unlike many big name software developers I’ve found.

My recommendation is to use Cura for 3D printing as there is plugins available for snap maker printers and Cura is great as you can add Mcode to the Gcode to do things like turn off lights and fans after printing is finished, save custom print configs etc.

I’m unsure about the cnc side of things. Not my interest, I’m sure some of the apps discussed earlier would be a better fit in Luban is buggy.

I’ve found Luban 4.13 is better than 4.12 for 3D printing, but it’s still hard to go past Cura for ease of use and reliability.

1 Like

You are right, but Luban is a free program to get a new user to start controlling their snapmaker.
As people get more experience, they usually move on. Cura has evolved over many more years, and with hundreds of thousands of hours of development going into it, it does all printers rather than just the snapmaker. Its harder to initially learn but the features and plugins are amazing.