PC CNC control

[compsurge]

Just saw this... Might be interesting.

http://3dprint.com/30793/marvell-3d-printing-socs/

 

[Cadillac STS]

Just to throw this in the conversation: I know the OP said he has Mach 3 and knows it through and through including the problems and limitations. Mach 4 is out. It would be a good idea to check out Mach 4 if only to see if they solved the concerns of Mach 3 and how they did it to be able to use the workarounds in a new product. And possibly just move to Mach 4 if it makes sense and move on to other things with the control out of the way.

 

[scalci]

My input will be to keep compatibility with legacy boards and interfaces lr as an addon that can be disabled once someone move to a later technology interface.

 

[rcaffin]

I want to strongly 2nd this point. This is THE PROBLEM with other windows based controls.
The very few controls that handle this issue correctly are so expensive almost no hobbyists use them.

Ah ... 'almost no' is probably thousands and thousands. They just don't use this web site. Try the Artsoft web site or CNCZone or various Yahoo groups. Mach3 by itself is tens of thousands.

Fwiiw, I do NOT agree that they are expensive.

Cheers

 

[rcaffin]

Mach 4 is out. It would be a good idea to check out Mach 4 if only to see if they solved the concerns of Mach 3

Early days, but it is likely.
How?
By doing a total rewrite, using professional programmers and structured design, in a portable language so it can run on most any machine - PC, Mac, etc, as long as you can find a compiler. It is designed to use an external hardware engine like the ESS, although I think someone has managd to write an LPT handler for it to run under W7. (Which was not easy.)

Yes, Mach3 had internal structural and desgn flaws which were NOT repairable. It had grown a bit too far. But it started as a hobby hack.

Quite a few commercial sites have been using Mach3 for years. I rather suspect they will all be moving to Mach4 over the next year or so, as the bugs get ironed out.

Cheers

 

[rcaffin]

Hi bsharp

Look, go for it. Just be aware that:

The idea is NOT new by a decade or two.

There are several fairly well-developed and affordable software systems out there right now doing exactly this - with huge numbers of both hobby and commercial users.

There are many inexpensive hardware engines out there already, with huge sales to both hobby and commercial users.

There is a quite large infrastructure selling all the servo drivers, BoBs etc by the thousands or more, at reasonable prices.

One could describe it as a well-developed and almost mature market.

Cheers

 

[JimDawson]

The Windows program should only be a translator and communication conduit. Drip the motion commands to the controller buffer. Offload all of the motion control duties to the controller. That is one of the problems with Mach3, if Windows decides to go do something else for a bit, Mach 3 gets confused.

I want to strongly 2nd this point. This is THE PROBLEM with other windows based controls.


The very few controls that handle this issue correctly are so expensive almost no hobbyists use them.


Karl

Ah ... 'almost no' is probably thousands and thousands. They just don't use this web site. Try the Artsoft web site or CNCZone or various Yahoo groups. Mach3 by itself is tens of thousands.

Fwiiw, I do NOT agree that they are expensive.

Cheers

The original question of this thread was what features might be wanted in a new, Windows based CNC controller program. So my response was related to that.

Karl was responding to my post. What he says is correct, very few hobbyists will pay about $2500 for a 4-axis motion controller. And that price does not include any other hardware to complete the system. Total system cost for a 3-axis + spindle control would run in the $4500+ range, using stepper motors on the axis.

Mach3 is used by thousands of happy users, and there are a number of options that don't use the parallel port. My experience with Mach3 is that in high speed applications it comes up a bit short. It is not a commercial quality product, but works fine in hobby or low speed applications.

I am using Mach3 on a 4-axis machine that is being shipped to a customer, so that means I have confidence in it to do the job for that application. I am using it with 32 bit, Win7 using the parallel port and it seems to be working OK. I have another 3-axis machine in process that is using the high end controller because I know Mach3 won't work for that one. I'll be looking at Mach4 for future projects when the dust settles a bit, and some of the kinks are worked out.