[skrap853]

I should have called it alternate. If it works out they will be interchangeable.

Having options is always a good thing. When there is market competition it drives down prices and increases features. Ideally it would be nice if more software and motion controllers were compatible (standards).

People that have been using UCCNC have been reporting great results. The project is active and the developers are responsive to bug fixes and features. The price here in the US is 60 dollars, very affordable. So if a product works well (better is subjective) and it is cheaper why wouldn't I want to use?

It seems Mach 3 grew to popularity since it easily turned a PC with parallel port into an affordable CNC controller. The ability to add motion control boards helped them stay popular. Where they lost me is when they decided to start Mach 4 several years ago and leave Mach 3 behind, while never finishing Mach 4. Mach 3's current state - on the software setup page for CRP they recommend not using the latest version [of Mach 3] as it is known to cause issues. The .062 version that is suggested instead was released in 2012. So one product is not maintained and the other incomplete with no site of being finished (even if it is finished it still might not be a suitable replacement for CNC routers).

I purchased a DIY CNC router because I enjoy learning and improving where I can. If I can learn something, improve my purchase, or just help the community as the whole, it is a win in my book.

JP

[abakker]

I should have called it alternate. If it works out they will be interchangeable.

Having options is always a good thing. When there is market competition it drives down prices and increases features. Ideally it would be nice if more software and motion controllers were compatible (standards).

People that have been using UCCNC have been reporting great results. The project is active and the developers are responsive to bug fixes and features. The price here in the US is 60 dollars, very affordable. So if a product works well (better is subjective) and it is cheaper why wouldn't I want to use?

It seems Mach 3 grew to popularity since it easily turned a PC with parallel port into an affordable CNC controller. The ability to add motion control boards helped them stay popular. Where they lost me is when they decided to start Mach 4 several years ago and leave Mach 3 behind, while never finishing Mach 4. Mach 3's current state - on the software setup page for CRP they recommend not using the latest version [of Mach 3] as it is known to cause issues. The .062 version that is suggested instead was released in 2012. So one product is not maintained and the other incomplete with no site of being finished (even if it is finished it still might not be a suitable replacement for CNC routers).

I purchased a DIY CNC router because I enjoy learning and improving where I can. If I can learn something, improve my purchase, or just help the community as the whole, it is a win in my book.

JP

I am resurrecting this thread to say that 6 years on, this is still the behavior of the 5LPT board with the UC300ETH. I’m also using the CNCRP board and have done a 1:1 swap.

I think the crux of the problem is that there ISNT a charge pump on the 5LPT board. If I could boot the board without powering all the 26 pin connectors, that would be fine, but alas . The reality is that it is hard to locate a charge pump that can control everything, so you end up needing more than one which is very annoying.

The CNCRP 850 board has its own terminals for 5v power, so I’m going to test removing the pin26 power from the cable and then seen if I can put a charge pump in to control that circuit.