No, it's not. You have to have at least a minimal understanding of just what it going on when software directed automatic mark sensing is going on.
After reading the first mark the software moves the plotter to where it thinks the next mark should be. It then searches in a small area around that position. If the mark is not where the software thinks it is then it fails.
This can be the result of the media feed rate and optional feed compensation set by you being substantially different between the printer and the potter. In English that means that what the printer thinks is, say, one foot is not what the plotter thinks is one foot. The further the distance between the marks and the less square the media is loaded, relative to the marks not the media, contribute to this.
The biggest issue with missing the marks is that the software, at least all I've seen, does not publish the size of the bounding rectangle described by the marks. If it did it would be a simple matter, after an automatic sensing failure, to use the plotter's automatic or manual sensing. In order to do that the logical [what the software thinks] size of that rectangle must be known.
You can always print your own marks at the corners of a rectangle, the size of which is known by you, make the contour path not a contour cut, use the plotter's automatic or manual sensing, and then cut that path. Hint: Make the contour path a color other than black and then cut only this color. This avoids cutting the marks along with the contour path. This method seldom if ever, fails. Whenever I have a longish print, say over 4-5 feet long, I use this method.
If you're printing on other than white media, like silver or etched or whatever, you can specify using manual four point registration, ala bomb sight, and use the plotter's built in light pen to manually locate the marks. If you do carefully this is every bit as accurate as automatic mark sensing either from the software or using the plotter's build in capability.
