100% agree on this and i have the same impression. It’s up to Revopoint to change his mindset on this. Whenever user having some issues it’s always threated as “user error”. I really miss the openness to listen to customer and provide solutons.
I would expect that somebody from official Revopoint team should provide answer now when it’s expected to implement the change mentioned in this thread.
This is Revopoint community dedicated to Revopoint products .
Follow the rules of the community .
Do you even imagine for a moment having an autofocus camera scanning 60 frames per second ?
How in the world you see that happen ?
RGB camera is not used in scanning using laser mode and only for textures in other modes and calibration .
All structured light scanners have fixed focal length , it always was and always will be because it is the best option to get the proper accuracy.
I already give you an email to contact customer@revopoint3d.com and have personal meeting with the dev.team to address your issues
Did you do that ?
I expect from the admin of this official Revopoint forum to address relevant customer feedback with the dev team. And this one is relevant!
The admin of this forum should engage between customer and dev team. This should be in the interest of both … customer and vendor.
Customer support operates under customer@revopoint3d.com
Including technical team where you can get all your answers .
After last week evaluation the team did not found any issues .
Most users that had issues with markers was resolved via customer@revopoint3d.com
In all cases recalibration of the scanner fixed their issues .
Thank you for your reply. Of course, technically, there are always many possible approaches, such as adding a secondary camera, or using a different optical setup, if one really wanted to improve marker detection without compromising accuracy or calibration. But to be honest, I don’t think it should be the users’ responsibility to propose technical solutions in detail. The intention here is to provide constructive feedback from real-world experience, which could help improve the product.
At least you won’t have this problem with trackit…
Whether Revopoint wants to take up these suggestions or not is entirely their decision. However, over time, consistently ignoring or dismissing user criticism tends to harm the product and the company more than it helps. In the end, it’s about listening to your users and developing the scanner in line with actual application needs.
Hi All,
Thank you for the feedback and discussion.
Revopoint has always been committed to listening to user feedback and continuously improving our software. Many features in Revo Scan have come directly from suggestions shared in the forum, so we truly welcome and value user input. Users active in the forum know this, so no worries, we don’t ignore users feedback/criticism.
This post has been forwarded to our product director Vivian, and we will respond after internal discussion.
However, please remember that the forum has publicly stated guidelines, and we kindly ask everyone to follow them when engaging in discussions. We do not comment on other brand’s products—each product has its own design philosophy and algorithms. If you have suggestions for MetroX, please keep the discussion focused on MetroX specifically. No other brand is allowed to be discussed here.
And, healthy debate and differing opinions are welcome, but personal attacks are absolutely not allowed. Please stay focused on the topic itself and avoid any form of personal insult—for example, accusing other members of being bots or engaging in similar behavior is unacceptable.
Thank you for your kind understanding and cooperation.
Hi everyone,
After discussing with our dev team, we’ve decided not to extend the default scanning distance. “Scanning distance” is an adjustable parameter. If high accuracy is required, we recommend keeping it within our default range. If the accuracy requirement is moderate, the distance can be extended. We will emphasize this point more clearly in our future communications.
Thank you for your suggestions.
It wasn’t about the scanning distance but rather that the markers outside of it were also recognized.
I am sorry to say but based on the answer it seems you have not at all understood what’s the issue about.
Only the depth cameras detect the markers for tracking. The rgb camera can “see” many more but they are outside the area that the depth cameras are reading for gathering points. The rgb camera has a wider field of view than the depth cameras. The metrox working distance is 200-400mm. At 400mm another companies scanner captures a wider field of view by 20mm each way than the metrox. Therefore it can capture or see more markers or the markers could be placed further away. Another companies scanner can also go out to 550mm working distance which would allow it so see a much much larger area and capture many more markers. If the depth cameras are accurate at these ranges than it will definately have tighter drift numbers over distance. Revopoint says expanding the working distance will cause the metrox to lose accuracy. So lets leave it alone and work within it’s limits. Maybe it takes more care to use than some other companies scanner or maybe not. It just may take more practice and experience. The idea that something difficult should just be made easy or else it is unusable is a new type of thinking that comes about in the modern age. The price point for the metrox lends it to be right where it is in my opinion. Perhaps Revopoint should make a more expensive version and call it pro and it can directly compete with some other scanners on the market. Sometimes things that are priced low bring customers that want things to easy as low money investment sometimes means low effort willing customers (not saying anyone here is that way). If anyone visits forums of other brands that are cheaper, consumer grade scanners they may see problems in posts and often no responses. I am grateful revopoint actually responds here and helps out. Not saying it is perfect now so happy to see the continued development with firmware and software going forward as I know revopoint will keep developing.
Perhaps something in developing that could add to accuracy is a tighter tolerance on calibration. My pop2 is super difficult to get calibrated and the metrox is easy. Maybe the parameters are a bit too lenient upon passing calibration to make it not so frustrating but maybe causes just enough error while scanning to add up over time. Just a thought, no idea whether it is true or not.
You are the only one in this thread that truly understand how it really works in this case , and it is not because it is cheaper or a bug , it is by design.
MetroX can only recognize markers by the area of its laser lines what is very small that why it requires the markers to be placed in specific way at specific distance and angle what is completely different FOV area than when using Full Field , laser mode only recognizes 800K points per frame and Full Field 7 millions . And that is all about.
To expand the MetroX laser mode area to recognize markers is possible , but the safety mode would need to be disabled among other adjusting like firmware, calibration and other stuff , and that would be little problematic with already released product .
And it goes on, user bashing instead of focusing on the actual issue. 
Most here still have not understood what the solution is about.
Scanned points outside of the selected area should still not be selected therefore improved implementation will have ZERO negative impact to accuracy.
I have made drawing about the requested implementation change.
If it’s still not understood i give up at this point. It should be quite clear that a marker detection area of only 14 cm (350-210) is much weaker than a marker detection area of 20 cm (400-200). It makes signinficant difference especially when scanning the marker in flat angle.
Also other vendor have such scanning distance slider but they are not limiting the marker detection area … for good reason.
Mr Cg, I agree it would be nice to have the depth cameras always see the full range for markers and still have a selectable range for points. It would seem it is just the software doing the distance limiting and not the actual cameras physically changing but I am not sure if that is how it works. At the very least, having the program start with the default set to both limits overall would save a step and be better for new users. Perhaps their intention for the default narrower range is to keep processing times down.
