Mach3, Mach 4 or Linux CNC for G0704

Hello All,

I am working on a second hand CNC converted G0704. The PC currently has Mach 3 but the previous owner said he was having issues with it after an upgrade and that I would likely have to buy a license when I was ready to get the machine going again. I shoudl be at that point soon. My question is do I stick with Mach3 or possibly consider Mach4 or LinuxCNC. I have never used either and will have to learn from scratch so I am open to changing. About the only thing that may have me lean toward the older Mach 3 is the previous owner is open to walk me through learning the machine a bit.

I am open to any and all suggestions

Marc

Mach4 is not yet ready for serious use. It is fine if you wish to play with CNC SW rather than doing serious machining. Yes, this is a harsh criticism, but right now ... We do hope for better things to come.

If your machine is running Mach3 you might need to buy some new electronics to get it to run LinuxCNC or EMC2. That is unfortunate, but they have gone down slightly different paths. The same comment applies to other brands of CNC SW. Then again, you might not need to.

If the previous owner was having problems with Mach3, we need to know what problems and what version. Older versions and unlicenced versions come to mind as likely. Many of us are running Mach3.042.062 with an Ethernet Smooth Stepper. That combination is keeping many of us very happy right now. Also, using an ESS allows an easy upgrade to Windows 7. Do NOT go beyond that right now.

Cheers
Roger

There are other Windows options that are arguably better than Mach3.
UCCNC
EdingCNC
Planet CNC

UCCNC is the most similar to Mach3, and has a better trajectory planner and better motion than Mach3. It's still under development, and doesn't have all the features of Mach3, but everyone that's used both seems to prefer UCCNC.

Hi Gerry

So I hear ...but the pain of setting up a whole new SW system ... aargh.
Especially as some of those require replacing the external engine! Double aaargghh.

Cheers

Well, I've had a mach4 license for 2 years now. I'm not waiting around until it becomes usable.

How funny this Mach3 saga. Realize that this forum and a few others have all been built on the back of Mach3. If it wasn't for the sooooo bad Mach3, this whole hobby forum would be a quarter the size of what it is today.

This forum and others have really exploded in size when pirated copies of Mach3 were made available to every Tom, Dick and Harry, making it the hobbyest's motion controller of choice. It just rubs me the wrong way everytime I hear how bad it is and every other piece of software out there is better. That's not even close to being true. Mach3 can still today be used, even commercialy and never have a hiccup along the way.

You'll notice UCCNC, EdingCNC and now the all mighty LinuxCNC(Path Pilot) all suffer the same issues as not one will ever be as good as a dedicated commercial piece of software. The reason?????/ They all are trying to please the masses(hobbyest) making there software good at everything. EDM, Lathe, Milling and on and on............Just totally ridiculous.
If you need an example of how the trends are look at poor old Tormach. They lost control of their venerable GUI because they decided to use LinuxCNC as there base. Just pathetic.

My suggestion to you. If it';s a hobby, find a stable copy of Mach3. Rewiring and changing electronics isn't worth it. Maybe bragging rights but that's it.

My two cents.

I still use Mach3 on my machine, and will continue to do so. And I've recommended Mach3 thousands of times in the past. Yes, it works fine for thousands of people. For a few, it doesn't work well at all.

But the fact is, that today, there are alternatives to Mach3 that perform better. I've seen it for myself, and others have to.

I didn't tell him not to buy Mach3, I just listed some alternative options, that many people feel are better.
I'm not going to recommend an inferior product, even if it's been the standard for many years.

Quote:

---

My suggestion to you. If it';s a hobby, find a stable copy of Mach3. Rewiring and changing electronics isn't worth it.

---

It sounds like the OP was using the parallel port. Buying a UC100 and UCCNC license is the same price as a Mach3 license, and no wiring changes are needed.

Quote:

---

Buying a UC100 and UCCNC license is the same price as a Mach3 license, and no wiring changes are needed.

---

Yes and still under development. So next thing people will critize will be UCCNC. I don't see the point.
To each his own I guess.
Learn what you have then upgrade. That's all I'm saying.

They all have their short comings.

Quote:

---

I don't see the point.

---

UCCNC runs machines better than Mach3. That's the point.

Quote:

---

If you need an example of how the trends are look at poor old Tormach. They lost control of their venerable GUI because they decided to use LinuxCNC as there base. Just pathetic.

---

I'm not familiar with their control interface past or present. Why is this a problem ?
The FAQ's on Tormach's site explains why they switched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G59

Yes and still under development. So next thing people will critize will be UCCNC. I don't see the point.
To each his own I guess.
Learn what you have then upgrade. That's all I'm saying.

They all have their short comings.

---

So you bashed a few systems that work well. What are your suggestions? Maybe Tormach switched to Linux because it works better? The GUI is damn sure more attractive than it was. Some of the features are very nice.

Btw everything is under development. Notice your computer, phone and almost anything else with memory needing an update?

To Bearhawk, my opinion is this. If you are just starting out in CNC and you arent familiar with code, use Mach3. It does have a learning curve as all will. However it is selection based. It will give you the options and a light explanation of what the settings are for.

I have only tried to understand and set up both Mach 4 and LinuxCNC. They are both much more code based, of which I have no experience. The more time I spend on forums learning about them and others just verifies that all systems have their quirks.

If the machine is set up using just a parallel port and breakout board, then LinuxCNC will work just fine. LinuxCNC also has the benefit of being totally free. You can try it without even permanently loading the Linux OS or LinuxCNC on your computer by using the live CD/USB to boot to it. IMO, there isn't any reason to not give it a try at least. I use it and find it does everything needed and runs well.

Quote:

---

If the machine is set up using just a parallel port and breakout board, then LinuxCNC will work just fine.

---

The problem here is that many of us are using the equivalent of TWO parallel ports - very often from a USS (deprecated, noise problems) or preferably an ESS. Rewiring a whole machine from the outputs of the breakout boards is just too much work.

Now, if someone could provide an ethernet engine for LinuxCNC, so we could change the ESS over and boot Linux, then you might see an awful lot of people having a go at it.Swap ESS for the ethernet/Linux board, boot Linux from a DVD, assign the pins to match the existing wiring, and run. I would consider trying it out myself that way. But I am not going to rewire my machine: it is too busy.

Is there such an external engine?

Cheers
Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCaffin

The problem here is that many of us are using the equivalent of TWO parallel ports - very often from a USS (deprecated, noise problems) or preferably an ESS. Rewiring a whole machine from the outputs of the breakout boards is just too much work.

Now, if someone could provide an ethernet engine for LinuxCNC, so we could change the ESS over and boot Linux, then you might see an awful lot of people having a go at it.Swap ESS for the ethernet/Linux board, boot Linux from a DVD, assign the pins to match the existing wiring, and run. I would consider trying it out myself that way. But I am not going to rewire my machine: it is too busy.

Is there such an external engine?

Cheers
Roger

---

Mesa Electronics

Assume I am stupid. Part number?
Cheers
Roger

rCaffin,

That is all well and good, but my post was to answer the OPs question and my statement still stands true. If the machine is set up to use a parallel port and simple breakout board, then LinuxCNC will work. Note I didn't say ESS, UCC, or anything else. Just parallel port and breakout board.

As for using 2 parallel ports. LinuxCNC can handle even more than that, but the Mesa stuff is preferred when you have that much going on.

My G0704 runs fine with an old pentium 4 computer and LinuxCNC through only the parallel port and a Chinese BOB. I have 3 axes with limit switches, probe input, and have no problems. Occasional real time warnings, but never anything other than warnings and never have missed a beat.

Hi jb

No argument.

What I am looking for is the laziest way to replace a Mach3+ESS config with a LinuxCNC+??? config, given that I am using the equivalent of TWO parallel ports. Move ethernet cable over, move two ribbon cables over, boot Linux from DVD or CD, run LinuxCNC, assign pins to match, run gcode.

Suggestions for the ??? bit?

Cheers
Roger

here you go Roger LinuxCNC Documentation Wiki: LinuxCNC Supported Hardware , if you know M3 problems they are not a problem, but other stuff is better depending on what you want and can do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fastest1

So you bashed a few systems that work well..

---

How did I bash any of them.

Hi Daniel

Yes, I know that page. Too many minimally documented PCBs.

What I am looking for is a reply from someone who has actually done the switch, by swapping out an ESS and putting in an xxx and replacing the ribbon cables going to the BoBs. Yes, I know this is tantamount to extreme hand-holding, but so far all I am seeing is 'maybes' rather then 'tested and working'. And the one deity I follow is called Murphy.

I am flat out every day with production at the moment. I am very happy to read up on possibilities in the evening, but I don't want to pull my machine apart and go into a protracted and possibly unsuccessful debugging phase right now.

Cheers
Roger