[dertsap]

There are very few posts on here regarding mach's new release so I figured it worth asking
I regularly see people post that mach isn't ready yet , but considering that it's been released for some time now , then I don't quite understand what its not ready for .
Is the core of the software buggy and not trust worthy to run g code for extended periods of time . Or , is it just the fact that there isn't enough hardware support yet .
I don't care about or need probes , pendants or any other type of gadgets , so if it can be set up and trusted to run long programs with a multitude of preset tools , then it would be ready enough for what I want .
The options for control software is growing but only a few are appealing . The two trail blazers seem to be my best option , though eding looks pretty darned good too

[ger21]

How "ready" it is depends on what motion controller you're using, and what features that particular motion controllers plugin currently supports.
In addition to that, there are some functions of Mach4 itself that have yet to be implemented. For example, CV mode. You can turn CV mode on and off, but there are no other controls. In Mach3, there are a half dozen options to fine tune CV mode. In Mach4, they have yet to be implemented.

[Fireman11]

So if starting from scratch do you think its better to go with 3 or 4 or suffer though the Linux learning curve?

[Tkamsker]

linucnc learning curve is flat these days relly boring in old days ,.. but thait is another story -


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

[dertsap]

There isnt much of a learning curve to linux . I used it for a while a number of years ago and it was easy enough to set up back then and little documentation was available . Theyve done a lot to make the initial set up easy and there is a lot of documentation available .
Otherwise from what Ger is saying , then m3 is the only other way to go (at least for myself) . Mach 3 works fine but improvments are always nice


Btw thanks tor the info Ger . This is the first solid thing that I've seen to trust that it isnt ready

[ger21]

I read the Machsupport forum daily, and I've yet to see any longtime Mach3 users switch to Mach4. Virtually all the questions about Mach4 are from new users.

Also, talk to the motion controller developers.
CS Labs makes what are believed to be the best Mach3 motion controllers available. They have a Mach4 plugin, but are not really supporting it at this time.
From what I've seen of the smoothstepper plugin development over the last 5 years for Mach3, I'd expect quite a while before their Mach4 plugins are mature.

Vital Systems seems to have the best Mach4 support with their Hicon, but it's not cheap.

So if starting from scratch do you think its better to go with 3 or 4 or suffer though the Linux learning curve?

I can only tell you what I would do, knowing what I know now after using Mach3 for several years.

The next version of LinuxCNC with the new trajectory planner is supposed to be pretty good. I won't use it, purely because I don't want to have to run Linux. Just a personal preference.

Right now, I'd go with either UCCNC, EdingCNC, or Planet CNC, depending on what features you need, and which interface you prefer.
I believe that all should actually run a machine better than Mach3. I've seen it first hand with UCCNC, but not the others.

I have a Mach4 license already, but my new machine is maybe a year away. If CS Labs comes has a fully functional, fully supported plugin when my machine is ready, I'll probably go with Mach4. Depending on how their CV mode development goes.
Otherwise, I'm leaning towards UCCNC.
I like Eding CNC, but the industrial board I'd want is over $1000.


There are so many different hardware options for all the controllers out there, that you really need to look at all the options and see what makes the most sense for you.

If you want to use a parallel port, then you're only real options are Mach3 or Mach4, or LinuxCNC. If this is the case, then I'd download Mach3 and use it for a while before you buy a license. Then it costs you nothing to see if it will work for you.

[hanermo]

Its a very complex issue.. and I agree with a lot from ger21.

I use CSMIO and Pokeys and have retired PP, Smoothstepper, Centipede, and anything else.
So I have (a lot of) experience with many different motion control boards, and with industrial machines.

The M4 problems are twofold.
1. Some of the M4 sw core features are not yet done.
2. Some of the support from the motion control people is not yet done - and some of it cannot be done, until some other fidly bit on Mach4 is done.

All of these issues exist with all other mentioned hw and sw as well.

My wide experience, says that csmio is the best option, if you can afford it. Some of the missing stuff will appear.

Some critical stuff on mach3 will never appear, so its a stopgap until the M4 gets a little bit better.
Examples:
CSS, perfect threading, rear toolpost, some other lathe stuff. These are mostly issues with Mach3 itself.

For my use, I expect to move onto M4 as soon as some lathe stuff gets working.
CSS and threading-thread pullout, indexed-servo-spindle stuff.

FWIW..
I am working on a 50.000€+ lathe app, and T&C grinder stuff, for industrial use.
For me, I can get industrial reliability and quality out of Mach3, and will be able to get it from Mach4.
I never suffer from Mach3 sw failures, and commonly have machines running days or weeks with no mishaps over 12+ years (2002 or since master5/Mach2 so..).

Every machine has a dedicated PC, for running the machine only, with networking, and a dedicated install.

For what its worth, I expect again to be soon working with M3 mill, with no mishaps- with pokeys.
This will be translated to M4, soon.
The machine is a custom VMC I scratch built, in steel.
Brushless servos, 2000 kg, submicron resolution.

I have no idea how hard the toolchanger macros will be with lua, as I dont have any experience.
My expectations are that it will be relatively easy.
Programming-stuff is easy for me, wtih 25+ years experience.

Imho, ime, lathe is much more complex, and mill is very simple.

The whole issue is complex in many subtle ways -
because gcode interaction can be very complex, and the expectations people have vary widely.
For me, I am willing to buy or build anything needed, and learn anything (like lua).

My goals are industrial-level stuff, and its not all that cheap, or simple.
Reliability is the most important criteria, not features.

Your goals or needs may not be the same.

[Tkamsker]

I also vote for reliability ...
Beeing in it > 30 years have all the Windows Training you need for bussiness applications i can say Lucky you with your mach x Windows is not an real time System so if it Works reliable good for you and i have heard a lot about mach 3 Win nc PC etc. My experience was different. . And maybe People like tormach aß well ...

Gesendet von meinem SM-N9005 mit Tapatalk

[ger21]

Mach3 works pretty well for most people. But there are two major issues that I'm aware of.

1) There's a bug in Mach3 where it will, under certain circumstances, accelerate faster than the acceleration setting, which can cause stalling or lost position. I've never run into this myself.

2) Mach3 is not precise when doing 3D carving at high speeds (300-400+ ipm). It can leave small gouges or ridges at direction changes, because there's no way to specify the path tolerance.

I don't buy into the "realtime" argument. Sure, there are a handful of things that a realtime control can do a little better. Mainly, realtime feedback.
I don't think this is necessary in most hobby machines, and any modern windows control (not Mach3, which is 10 years old) will be as quick and responsive as if it were running a "Realtime" OS.

[daniellyall]

ger my only problems with M3 are 1 and 2 cant find what is making it happen on my big machine, small machine never had a problem. I would say M3 does work well on some computer`s had that first hand, tried linuxcnc on the bad computer it still was bad.

I am in the same boat what to change to,I like arts idea the other 3 you said about have what I wont and M4 ???? I need to get something but what will be good for day to day router work. I am going to change next year. I am waiting to see how the more experienced boy`s like you get on with what ever you change to.

[dertsap]

most of my work it 2.5d and the only issues that I find with mach 3 is with choppy code (short line segments) The problem is that I have loads of programs with the short segments due to the version of bobcad that I've been using . Mach runs thru the code without hichups but some portions of code are choppy while running . The equidistant toolpaths produce large amounts of code . Ive recently upgraded to the new version so I'll need to redo a lot of programs since they've changed it to arc and line moves .
Aside from the choppy code , I run a lot of xz yz arcs and some of the newer control softwares don't offer those codes .
Chances are that I'm looking for something thats not out there . overall if I can shave a few minutes from a cycle time then I'll be happy . As it stands , my cam software will show a lot of my programs as being 25-30 minutes long , and once they've run thru mach then they take 40-45 minutes . Considering that I do 6-7 manual tool changes on average , then it's not too bad , but I love to see things run just a bit smoother .

[daniellyall]

I have found tuning the acceleration help`s with that. unless it`s playing up, (it a bug for me) ,I have had code do what you described dertsap but the next day it did not do it and I have had it happen a couple of times in 2D tool paths.

only people like ger or the other mach experts can explain what may be going on. I do a lot of xz, xy arcs as well that 90% of the time it`s fine the other 10% can be at anytime. when it goes mad it could be for 5 mins the hole day or a week.

the pp I use for fusion put`s out radius move`s that seems a lot better than i or j

[A_Camera]

So if starting from scratch do you think its better to go with 3 or 4 or suffer though the Linux learning curve?

Before you decide for anything you should look at your needs and future plans. Beware that if you go for Linux than it is most probably not the Linux OS which will cause issues but the CNC software. It is not Mach compatible, so some instructions are not the same. Also, if you want to use something other than parallel port than you have to check that the driver is supported by your CNC software and not only that, but also all the functions you intend to use are supported by the diver and the driver plugin. Things like G31 (and other g-codes) and some VB codes are not always supported so you really have to check everything before you decide.

Anyway, the way I see it, Mach3 is the best of the three alternatives you have mentioned in my opinion. Mach4 is not mature enough in my opinion and Linux was not that straight forward when I tried, but like I said, the problem was not the OS, but the software. Admittedly, I tried the LinuxCNC over two years ago, so probably the latest version is better, but I still prefer Mach3.

Please note, I am just an amateur, but built a CNC from scratch and it is working fine when I use it. I tried a few alternatives, but I don't know all. Not saying Mach3 is the best on the market, but it is pretty good and has everything I need. There is also a lot of documentation available on the Internet and a huge number of real experts, which is very good.

[hanermo]

The operating system re: real-time reliability is a non-issue.
The real issue is that making any windows system "reliable" is quite laborious, and restricts it a little bit.

All real-time components come from the csmio, pokeys, or whatever motion controller you are using.
Just like on a 20.000$ siemens controller, with windows.
A "generic" windows that you use to play games with, have umpteen plugins updates and spyware and call-home features is not what you want on a machine controller.

The benefits of linux are many, but the really poor documentation re: hardware, and really poor availability of good motion control hardware, are a real problem.
Linuxcnc has much less "gotchas" but they are not documented at all, just like on machx.

Most issues with 3d stuff and moves come from people who
- dont have mechanically good machines,
- are not using servos, and
- dont have any appreciation of inertia matching and rigidity.

Its perfectly possible to run 3d code really, really fast.
Its really easy.
Use a *good* motion controlller, use brushless servos, and the right size of steps, about 10x smaller than the required resolution.
Use a fast pc, with a good video card, to test with.
Once everything is running right, build a pc dedicated to just operating the machine.

No youtube videos, no adobe anything, no quicktime or apple anything, no automatic updates of any kind and so on..

Its impossible to "investigate" the support of any vendor, at the moment.
None of them document what features work, even for very basic stuff (homing, probing, slaving, threading, css, toolposts more than 1 etc).

I hope to start changing this, soon.
This will focus on mach4.

[A_Camera]

Mach3 works pretty well for most people. But there are two major issues that I'm aware of.

1) There's a bug in Mach3 where it will, under certain circumstances, accelerate faster than the acceleration setting, which can cause stalling or lost position. I've never run into this myself.

I experienced this twice. The first time I thought it was caused by my optimistic tuning of my machine, so I changed the maximum speed and acceleration, but just the other day it happened again... I suspected my own tuning (or my machine, which is my own design) again but now that you mention this as a bug, it might be Mach3, so I might as well turn up speed and acceleration again and see what happens.

2) Mach3 is not precise when doing 3D carving at high speeds (300-400+ ipm). It can leave small gouges or ridges at direction changes, because there's no way to specify the path tolerance.

This I haven't seen yet, but good to know.

I don't buy into the "realtime" argument. Sure, there are a handful of things that a realtime control can do a little better. Mainly, realtime feedback.
I don't think this is necessary in most hobby machines, and any modern windows control (not Mach3, which is 10 years old) will be as quick and responsive as if it were running a "Realtime" OS.

I also don't buy the "Windows is not a real time OS" thing. That argument was valid more than ten years ago, but starting with Windows XP and a properly written software that is really a none issue, the argument is used by people who don't really know what they are talking about. Professionally I use Linux (not freeware version), because of REALLY time critical applications (air traffic control applications) but for a CNC, especially for hobby use, windows is more than enough. BTW, there is no REAL real time OS. One CPU core can only do one thing at a time, so as soon as you have more than one task going on (and that is happening basically all the time in a computer) the time the CPU is used must be divided between tasks. So as soon as you have an OS involved, even if it is called "real time OS" it is not real time, just that if you have a fast enough computer and a well written OS + application you won't notice any timing issues, even if it is there. Linux is not a holy solution to any computing issues. It has also limitations and is highly dependent on the computer speed and the application software, just like Windows. A slow computer is a slow computer and an overloaded computer is an overloaded computer, even if it is based on Linux.

[dharmic]

FWIW: most versions of Linux or Unix type systems out there are not "realtime" either. They are just as jittery in the timing department as Windows. The difference is usually that a minimal install of Unix has a lot less bloatware coming along for the ride than a base Windows install, so the machine doesn't get so much load.

[hanermo]

Not really correct.
Mach3 with PP IS a real time operating system. Mach3 runs windows, not the other way round. But only with the PP driver.
So is linuxcnc, a custom real-time kernel.

Both are moot points, as what you really need is a real-time hardware pulser like csmio, or pokeys, or whatever. Mesaxxx for linux cnc and so on..
In that case the real-time part is handled in hardware, and is both accurate, fast (eg 4Mhz) and in accurately in step with low jitter.

I also don't buy the "Windows is not a real time OS" thing. That argument was valid more than ten years ago, .

[Tkamsker]

Before you decide for anything you should look at your needs and future plans. Beware that if you go for Linux than it is most probably not the Linux OS which will cause issues but the CNC software. It is not Mach compatible, so some instructions are not the same. Also, if you want to use something other than parallel port than you have to check that the driver is supported by your CNC software and not only that, but also all the functions you intend to use are supported by the diver and the driver plugin. Things like G31 (and other g-codes) and some VB codes are not always supported so you really have to check everything before you decide.

Anyway, the way I see it, Mach3 is the best of the three alternatives you have mentioned in my opinion. Mach4 is not mature enough in my opinion and Linux was not that straight forward when I tried, but like I said, the problem was not the OS, but the software. Admittedly, I tried the LinuxCNC over two years ago, so probably the latest version is better, but I still prefer Mach3.

Please note, I am just an amateur, but built a CNC from scratch and it is working fine when I use it. I tried a few alternatives, but I don't know all. Not saying Mach3 is the best on the market, but it is pretty good and has everything I need. There is also a lot of documentation available on the Internet and a huge number of real experts, which is very good.

Hi camera
I dont agree i have a heiz 400T which was delivered with Win nc PC i then changed it to mach3 ... When I got the toolchanger i moved to linuxcnc because i had too much jumps in the middle of jobs ( Eagle using pcbgcode )
And 0.6 m m drill hat e any jumps
I also run bobcad so i can say gcode is universal really .. I did some Tests on Same machine in dual Boot First Windows then 2nd batch linuxcnc in Alu i can say gcodes where almost exchangeable (end of Programm differs ) ,,,

Gesendet von meinem SM-N9005 mit Tapatalk

[daniellyall]

its a round about argument about real time OS some computer`s are just dog`s with windows and linux`s I have proven it, that computer has some big holes in it.

on the computer that has no problem running M3 it run`s M4 and linux with no problem with pp. it`s all down to who makes the computer My machine control computer runs like a dream and its 15 years old and it`s on windows.

so it down to getting something that will do what you wont when you wont

[samco]

Couple things..

-Linuxcnc uses a real-time patched kernel. It is realtime
-linuxcnc is the motion controller. It doesn't need or want external motion controllers. The interface cards do what the computer can't do well. (High speed step generation, pwm, encoder counting, i/o and such.).
-Linuxcnc having the motion controller in the computer - all new features added to linuxcnc( ie rigid tapping) are available to all interface cards. You can even rigid tap with the printer port if you wanted..
-because linuxcnc is the motion controller - interface hardware is less expensive. Something close to smooth stepper is $89. (With a ton more expandability).
-the next version of linuxcnc has an improved trajectory planner, real-time Ethernet communication, and other improvements.
-active development
-free and open source.
-motion loop is closed in the computer.

As of right now the trajectory engine in mach4 is the same as mach3.

Sam