[robiel]

Hi Ger,

Just installed 2010 on an XP machine running M3.066. Most everything is working fine but I notice one peculiarity. When I click on any of the current offset radio buttons the led doesn't change to green. The button is operational because the coordinates change and the Offset at the bottom of the screen changes. When I open the screenset in the screen editor it appears that these are defined properly as green leds. Any ideas?

Thanks,
John

[robiel]

Hi Ger,

Just installed 2010 on an XP machine running M3.066. Most everything is working fine but I notice one peculiarity. When I click on any of the current offset radio buttons the led doesn't change to green. The button is operational because the coordinates change and the Offset at the bottom of the screen changes. When I open the screenset in the screen editor it appears that these are defined properly as green leds. Any ideas?

Thanks,
John

Radiobutton LEDS work fine on other screens. Checkmarks appear in checkboxes on offsets screen.

[ger21]

There's a brain that you need to enable for them to work. There are actually 2 Brains that need to be enabled.

Axis_Scale
Offset LEDs

[robiel]

There's a brain that you need to enable for them to work. There are actually 2 Brains that need to be enabled.

Axis_Scale
Offset LEDs

RTFM - right? That fixed it!

I just loaded the Mach4 demo and ran it. 245 megabytes base load! vs: 45 megabytes for Mach3. And tiny little characters inside of huge boxes. Man do they need you to design their screens! I wouldn't even consider Mach4 at this point. It's still ugly and five times as fat.

[robiel]

Hi Ger,

In an earlier comment about Mach4 you mentioned that there were a number of good quality control programs from which to choose. I was wondering if you have found any that have the relatively easy macro writing capabilities of Mach3. LinuxCNC is powerful but writing a macro in Python requires a deep knowledge of a very poorly documented program (Axis). And, as far as I can tell, there isn't any way to embed G-Code directly in the macro stream. That makes writing the kind of routines that do auto-zeroing very difficult.

Aside from LinuxCNC I'm not aware of any other control programs that have significant market presence so I was very intrigued by your comment. Your screenset makes Mach3 a lot more tolerable but if there are other programs you know of that provide good capabilities I'd be very interested in knowing what they are so I can take a look at them.

[ger21]

I don't have any experience with it other than browsing through manuals, but EdingCNC would appear to be one.

UCCNC would be another. Their macros are written in C# I think, but if you can write VB macros, you should be able to figure them out pretty easily. The main issue is that it's a new program, and is still a work in progress. Not much documentation yet. There is supposed to be a new release soon that adds a lot of missing features and capabilities.
UCCNC appears to have been designed to be very similar to Mach3 in how it's customized. Even a lot of the controls will make you think it's based on Mach3. That may make it a little easier to customize.

Both of these only work with their own hardware, btw.

[robiel]

I don't have any experience with it other than browsing through manuals, but EdingCNC would appear to be one.

UCCNC would be another. Their macros are written in C# I think, but if you can write VB macros, you should be able to figure them out pretty easily. The main issue is that it's a new program, and is still a work in progress. Not much documentation yet. There is supposed to be a new release soon that adds a lot of missing features and capabilities.
UCCNC appears to have been designed to be very similar to Mach3 in how it's customized. Even a lot of the controls will make you think it's based on Mach3. That may make it a little easier to customize.

Both of these only work with their own hardware, btw.

I looked at both. UCCNC has a very clean interface. I like your 2010 screenset better than either of them so I'll stick with Mach3 for now. Interesting that a UC100 interface and license for UCCNC costs less than a license for Mach4. Given that Mach4 will require an interface of some sort on modern machines, that raises its price by another hundred bucks. I wouldn't be buying shares of Newfangled Solutions right now.

Mach3 continues to be the best low cost alternative for a controller that's tested and relatively full featured. It's like having a Russian peasant for a wife - and now you've given her a pretty face. Her body has strange lumps but she can sure hoe the potatoes.

Will Photoshop CS2 handle your photoshop files correctly? That's the version Adobe released into the public domain along with Acrobat 7 and some others.

Can you send a paypal invoice for the additional cost of the graphics if I decide to get them?

Thanks,
John

[ger21]

The Photoshop files were created in CS2.
Send me an email if you want them.

As more people try to use Mach4 in it's current state, there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers. I'm already starting to see it on the Machsupport forum.

Right now, it's just like Mach3 with regards to motion controllers. You have no idea what features work in which motion controllers, most of which have beta version plugins.
They've made it way too complex, and are still relying on 3rd parties to make it all work.

Companies offering both hardware and software have a huge advantage right now. Much faster development, and more control.
Unless Mach4 matures very quickly, I'll probably start working on a UCCNC screenset this summer. I just need to see their new version, and get my hands on some hardware.

[robiel]

As more people try to use Mach4 in it's current state, there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers. I'm already starting to see it on the Machsupport forum.

Right now, it's just like Mach3 with regards to motion controllers. You have no idea what features work in which motion controllers, most of which have beta version plugins.
They've made it way too complex, and are still relying on 3rd parties to make it all work.

Companies offering both hardware and software have a huge advantage right now. Much faster development, and more control.
Unless Mach4 matures very quickly, I'll probably start working on a UCCNC screenset this summer. I just need to see their new version, and get my hands on some hardware.

Newfangled Software is a strange company. Does the Mach4 license entitle the user to run Mach3? I would hope so! But I don't think they do. And do they really think its reasonable to keep selling Mach3 at full price without offering a single dollar of discount on Mach4? That's INSANE!!!!! If I were running the show I'd offer Mach4 at the full price and include a Mach3 license. Maybe they do and I just didn't read carefully enough.

I learned from a company rep that the the UC300-5LPT is going to work with the next release of UCCNC. That clinched it for me and I ordered the board since I can use it with Mach3 and move over to UCCNC for just a few dollars when the feature set becomes appealing enough. They seem to have a decent business model - license the software by tying it to a serialized controller. That keeps the pirating to a minimum unless the Chinese can figure out a way to do the Saleae trip on them. I doubt it though because I believe the processor they are using has pretty good security features and it will be hard to defeat that unlike the case with Saleae which had zero security from the start.

My main question about the UC300 is its relatively limited GCode support vs: Mach3 native. They are also really digging deep into the innards of Mach3 because they do their own trajectory planning and execution. How well that integrates with Mach3 remains to be seen. Sounds pretty tricky to me. I don't think of Mach3 as well-designed software but more of a kludge that's been beaten into submission over the years but is probably very fragile to major surgery. The behavior of an iMach M1 pendant is a good example. When I install the pendant .dll, the Go to Zero button on the screen that works with total reliability without the plugin starts faulting every time I push it. I'm using G320 controllers with a CNC4PC C17 so when one of those Gecko controllers fault the whole system shuts down and I get an led indication from the C17 telling me which axis faulted. Somehow the .dll is interfering with the pulse generation even when I'm not using the pendant. That's scary. I'd like to think that Mach3 would lock out any effects of a .dll during actual machining but I have no confidence because, as I said above, I think it's a kludge of one thing piled on another by a bunch of guys who don't take much pride in their work. I know that's harsh but look at the brains editor - it's probably one of the crudest pieces of software I've seen in the last ten years. But it hasn't been touched since 2007.

There have to be good reasons they decided to put Mach3 in the trash bin. It's an indictment that they could only use 2% of the code from Mach3 as far as I'm concerned. Why should I believe they can do any better now?

UCCNC is using Flash along with OpenGL - the same kind of thing Bob Warfield is doing with GCode Wizard. I'm not crazy about the look and feel of it. I don't think flash has tooltips and I really like those though Mach3 and probably Mach4 don't have them either. I'll be interested in your ongoing comments about how easy or hard it is to create attractive screens. The one they have is clean and crisp but somehow I don't like it that much - not sure why. I feel like I'm back in kindergarten with dull tipped scissors cutting out bananas. Can't I find SOMETHING nice to say about something?

Well, yes I can. The thing I like most about 2010 screenset was your decision to keep a delicious dark chocolate coating over the various nougat centers. When switching from screen to screen there is no visual confusion since 90% of the screen remains the same and only the essential items in the tab area are changed. Very easy on the eyes since I know exactly where to look. The tabs are directly over the area that's changing.

[ger21]

Does the Mach4 license entitle the user to run Mach3?

No, it doesn't.

And do they really think its reasonable to keep selling Mach3 at full price without offering a single dollar of discount on Mach4?

I can understand not having an upgrade path for older owners, but I agree that anyone buying Mach3 now should have an upgrade path.
But they look at Mach3 almost as two separate, unrelated programs.
Keep in mind that Mach3 was written by someone else, and Newfangled took it over when he retired.

When Mach4 is finally out of beta, they'll stop selling Mach3. Even though they won't say it, they probably realize that Mach4 is not ready for the masses yet.

They are also really digging deep into the innards of Mach3 because they do their own trajectory planning and execution.

Actually, no, they don't. All motion controllers that work with Mach3 use Mach3's trajectory planner.

My main question about the UC300 is its relatively limited GCode support vs: Mach3 native

I think they'll be adding support of more g-codes as time goes on. Remember, this is still a fairly new product.
I certainly hope so, as I really need G41/G42.

There have to be good reasons they decided to put Mach3 in the trash bin. It's an indictment that they could only use 2% of the code from Mach3 as far as I'm concerned. Why should I believe they can do any better now?

As I said, Mach3 was developed by one person. As more people begin to use it, they requested more features. As more features were added, and Mach3 grew more and more complex, these new features began to affect other features. At some point, Mach3 got to complex for it's own good. It got to the point that bugs couldn't be fixed without creating new ones.
Add in the fact that Mach3 was originally designed for parallel port use only, so internally wasn't ideally setup for dealing with external hardware.
All these issues together required it's successor to be a total re-write, which is Mach4.

UCNC is using Flash along with OpenGL ......................... I'm not crazy about the look and feel of it.

It's Flash based, but you don't have full access to all the Flash options. This is good because it greatly simplifies things, and it means you don't have to spend all that money on Flash. Although it's actually cheaper now, paying $20/month. The downside is that you're far more limited in what you can do.
And I'm also not cray about it. A bit too cartoonish. Not that it's bad, it's just not my thing.

[ger21]

I'll be interested in your ongoing comments about how easy or hard it is to create attractive screens.

In UCCNC, or in general?

In general, it's both easy and hard. The more people you want to appeal to, the harder it gets. You have to figure out where to put features that you'd personally never use.
If you ever look at Mach3 screensets that users create for themselves, they tend to be very simple. The default Mach3 screenset has to cater to everybody, so it's overflowing with controls.

Oh wait, you said "attractive" screens. That takes some skill, and knowledge of what looks good. You can't get carries away with fancy graphics, as they can be overpowering, or distracting. As the 2010 Screenset has proven, making it look like a Windows program goes a long way. Now that I've started using Windows 8.1, that's the look that you can expect to see from me.

Implementing it is another story.
UCCNC was designed to use a "tab like" interface. Only their tabs look like buttons. Making multiple rows of "tabs" will be difficult, because true multi row tabs will move when active, as the active tab needs to be on the bottom row. It may be possible to pull off, by being very creative. But it may not be worth the trouble.

The 2010 Screenset was designed for a 1024x768 monitor, which was common at the time.
Anything now will be designed for 1920x1080. This allows you to consolidate a lot of information on the screen. I find the 2010 screenset a little annoying, because I have to change tabs too often. Look for more controls on the main screen.
UCCNC has nice big buttons that would work well with a touchscreen. My preference would be more, smaller buttons with keyboard "hotkeys". I don't want a touchscreen in my garage.

A lot of the graphics for the 2010 Screenset were done with Visual Basic Express 2010. I just created a project with a form, and dragged buttons around to get the look I was after. Then took screen grabs, and pasted things into different Photoshop layers. This is far easier than creating graphics from scratch in Photoshop, although I did do a little of that as well.

Since there's currently is no screen designer for UCCNC, creating a screen right now is a bit tricky. The screen is described with a text file. The default screen is about 1300 lines of text.
I was able to figure out a lot of it, and got some additional info from the developers.

I learned from a company rep that the the UC300-5LPT is going to work with the next release of UCCNC.

I really need to see the next release to see what they've added, and how it's all implemented. The current version is pretty basic, as it only supported the UC100. They need to add a lot more stuff for the UC300 support.

Based on the emails I've exchanged with CNC Drive, I'm pretty excited about this product. It seems to have a lot of promise.
But it'll be a while before I have a lot of time to devote to it.

For the next few months, I'll be working on finishing my JointCAM project.

After that I'll see how things are developing, and see what I want to do.

[Robert M]

Hi Ger !

Have a question in regard of ASPIRE post processor and your screen set !
Please let me know if I should move this thread / question on ASPIRE at CNCz.

New to ASPIRE, when I did my 1st test, with a file calling for some few tool change, all was fine at first tool but....it act in a strange way for the 2nd tool after the auto change !
Did initially the dual chevron set up, but after the post call for the 2 tool ( witch was fine till then) it did not go back down as plan, meaning the Z went back over the work piece higher then what it should be by a measurement of witch I did not measure, but at least....1.5'' to 2" above the work pieces???....like air routing !!
If a video would be better to see then me...trying to explain this....let me know, it is easy to do !

Bottom line...Is it known that the post in Aspire (when I select Mach2/3 ACT Arcs (inch)....acts "funky" and is needed to...either modify the txt output file...or is it know to go wrong and go to use another post ?

Thanks for your time.....and as said, please let me know is this is the right place to ask !
Later, Robert

[ger21]

You probably have tool lengths in your tool table and the G43 Length offsets are changing your Z zero.
Try the Aspire post on my website, at the bottom of the page.

The CNC Woodworker - Mach3 2010

[Robert M]

no debate about my lack of knowledge in CNC programming !!
Could you tell more about :
1st, how & where to I go about installing this post of yours ( ASPIRE 4.5) ?!
2 - may I ask you to help me understand more this : ( You probably have tool lengths in your tool table and the G43 Length offsets)
2a - Where is this tool length ?....I can't see it in the edit tool or in the tool database ??
2b...G43 length offset.....where is that, and can I change it ? ( I realize, once your new PP script installed, all should be taking care of, but...I'de like to know where is this G43 ? )

Thnks for your time on my issue....later

[ger21]

In Aspire. go to File > Open Application Data Folder. Copy the file into the PostP or My_PostP folder.
After you restart Aspire, when you go to save the g-code, choose the Mach3 2010 post. If you put the post in the My_PostP folder, it'll be your only option.

2a) In the Mach3 tooltable. Do you have any tool lengths there?

2b) The default Aspire post processor adds G43 tool length offset commands in the g-code. If you have tool lengths in your tool table, the offset can affect the Z zero location.

[Robert M]

Ha....now I see....not I was blind....but !
not obvious when you don't know !
Aslo, I was surprised to see some values in the Mach3 tooltable, as I can't remember why I would ever put some there !?!

O-well....know, after testing your post....obviously & as expected....all is fine, thks to you !
Great, much appreciated...once more.
Later, Robert

[Goforit]

Hello I have the 2010 screen set installed. Now I need to install the connections from my breakout board to the touch off plate's. I have watched U tube video's of the wiring, connectors and plate's that show the general setups. I'm looking for a bill of material of sorts, so I can order the needed parts. When I look at the electronic parts in catalogs I don't have any confidents in what to order. If someone could help me with this problem it would be greatly appreciated .

[ger21]

What breakout board are you using?

On my machine, the only components I used was a piece of wire and a resistor, wired directly to the parallel port.

If your breakout board has built in pull up resistors, you may only need to wire the plate directly to an input on the breakout board.

[bcer960]

Gerry,
I bought this program a few years ago, and overall, I am very happy with it. My machine is a homebuilt, and as such has gone through many upgrades over time.
The reason I bring this up, is that at some point in time, I lost the ability to move my machine around using the keyboard. My memory says it was about the time I installed 2010, but I am not in any way saying it is.
Having said that, when I use the original mach 3, I can move the machine with the keyboard.
I have set up the hot keys the same in both.... do you know what I am doing wrong??
I have a shuttle pro that I normally use for moving the machine, but over the weekend, one of the buttons stopped working, and it would have been nice to revert back to the keyboard.

Thanks in advance
Ray

[ger21]

The screenset should have no effect on jogging (or any other Mach3 functions). With the exception of the custom macros, all the screenset does is change the way Mach3 looks, not the way it functions.
Using View > Load screens, you should be able to seamlessly switch between the 2010 screenset and any other (except maybe MSM), and everything should function the same, regardless of the screenset you're in.

So if you can jog in the 1024.set screenset (default), if you use View>Load screens, and switch to the 2010 screenset, jogging should still be working.

When you say "the original Mach3", are you running that with a different profile? If that's the case, then it's possible that you may have a corrupt .xml file.

But other than that, I have no idea why jogging wouldn't work, unless it's due to a setting. If you can post your .xml file, I'll take a look tomorrow.