[BobWarfield]

Well there is that linux it's self is more robust the windows.
Realtime is more robust then non realtime.

See my other post on this "realtime is more robust" issue. Show me how I can tell without looking inside the black box that it's more robust.

Ok does workaround sound better? I can't see how a commercial controller has any choice - if they want a windows front end (marketing value) they must use a separate smart control board. Windows is not realtime. Also I would imagine Siemens are capable of some pretty amazing performance, they are also locked into those features. You can run some pretty fancy and large machines with EMC not locked in to hardware or a huge price tag (like Siemens etc)

Actually, no, the workaround doesn't sound better. This is again, a very common architecture. What is not so common is EMC's architecture among industrial grade CNC controllers.

When you can say you can run some pretty fancy large machines, there are a few EMC anecdotes about running older VMC's. It's far from clear they get the results that for example a Cincinnati Arrow running the Siemens A2100 could.

EMC is far more configurable even without the source code. But it takes more knowledge or time.

How do you quantify that? For example, none of the screen work one seems on Mach with the "brains" and other sorts of add-ons seem possible without source in EMC.

What do you consider idiosyncratic?

Complicated mill-turn machines and the like. Machines with weird kinematics or axis relationships. Machines with weird requirements for ancillary devices.

Most VMC's are not idiosyncratic.

What the source code does give you is choice. You can work on your own machine with every bit of information available.
If you are talking serious money making machines that can be a huge asset.

No, if you're in the business of making serious money doing machine work, most everyone will tell you to steer clear of Mach3, EMC2, retrofits, and anything else that detracts from making the chips that are your parts. Depreciate the machine in 4 years and buy another one that makes the parts faster.

But using Linux for everyday stuff is not much of a barrier other then it's different and most people don't like change.

Easy to say if you've already crossed that rubicon, but just not true for most folks. Learning a new OS is a major barrier.

You mention Glass scale feedback but it's really making changes based on any feedback. (the definition of closed loop). With EMC you have maximum choice. Recently one fellow connected a microcontroller with a temp probe to EMC using a serial port then used it to compensate for thermal growth of the spindle ( about .003 ). He could have just as easily used one of the other 'officially supported' hardware. This compensation feature is not a standard thing, he came up with the idea and added it. EMC does support a compensation lookup table for such things as screw compensation.

Temp comp like you describe for the spindle case sounds doable in Mach3. Mach also has leadscrew comp. I've used it after calibrating mine with a tenths reading DRO.

I know EMC is actively developed pretty much daily.
The development tends to be un directed formally. It generally moves in the direction of what interests the current developer.
Hence Fancy easily configurable graphics are not high on most developers wants so EMC is a little boring looking and difficult to change it's look.

Similar sentiments for Mach3. But what are the major features introduced, and when were they introduced?

This seems odd to me. Then Mach would cease to be a motion controller it would be a familiar screened interface to probably inconsistently supported features of motion control cards.

Not odd at all. It's how a lot of the world works. Look at it this way. The extreme low level guts don't involve all that much interesting innovation. It's just a knot hole we have to get through to move the axes. A world of much more interesting innovation exists at higher levels.

Heck, the g-code dialects of both EMC and Mach3 are starkly limited compared to what Fanuc and many others offer. Just making that area richer would add a lot of value to these audiences. How about the full Fanuc Macro B language? How about the canned lathe cycles? How about more sophisticated trajectory planning? There's a ton of very subtle effects that Mach3 and EMC2 aren't even close to addressing while they're mired at these low levels.

This is how the PC world made so much progress. If the same company has to design and build all the hardware (CPU, graphics chip, mobo controllers, etc.) as builds the OS and the apps too, progress is glacial and lock-in is maximal.

Somebody will do it. There's too many college kids messing around with g-code, Arduinos, and such for it not to happen. Gecko is starting to talk about higher level interfaces to their drives.

As soon as you get that sort of pidgin g-code backed into the hardware--just g01, spindle control, and maybe control a few relays with M-codes, you make the task of building the higher levels dramatically less finicky. Then you'll see a lot more innovation in the software.

The best news is it will all be cheap too. Arduino costs way less than a Smoothstepper.

It's having to make all these angels dance on the head of a parallel port that slows us down, if you'll pardon my fractured metaphor.

Cheers,

BW