[rogerfries]

Hi, I a home hobby user, no revenue, just for fun home shop projects. I have an old Bridgeport BOSS 5 that was setup with Mach 3 with an Ethernet Smooth Stepper. I have a 4th access rotary table and I'm currently using Clearpath motors. I need probing, Some Conversational programming as well as be able to POST from Fusion 360. I used Mach 3 for many years, but I purchased a addon from a third party that offered improved screens and probing routines. Well this third party company went out or stopped supporting the product so the activation server went down. After a PC crash and not being able to recover my environmnet due to the copy protection, I got the bright idea to move to Linux CNC and go open source and I won't have to worry about copy protection or some activation server being inaccessable. I got a Mesa card, but as much as I want to like Linux & Linux CNC, I don't and as a result my machine has been offline for over a year. I got distracted by other things and now I'm kind of starting over as I don't remember where I left off or where my problems even where. It's a home shop that earns no money at all so I don't want to spend a fortune, but price is NOT really my primary concern. I'm looking for a system that Is reliable and I'll be happy with in the long run. Something that if it sits for 6 months I'll be able to fire it up and expect it to work and easy enough to operate that I'll remember how to use it. Also something that I can expect to last many years and be able to get replacement parts or upgrades long term. I'm faced with several options. Go back to Mach 3 & ESS, Upgrade to Mach 4, Tough it out and get Linux CNC working, Scrap everything and go to Acorn or Masso. Acorn looks very interesting. The software looks usable, but like it was written in the 80's or 90's. It's still seems way more intuitive than Linux CNC. The Masso solution looks a bit nicer, but all proprietary hardware, so I have concerns on replacement parts in the future.

What do you think?

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

Go back to Mach 3 & ESS, Upgrade to Mach 4,

I use Mach4 and an ESS and have done for eight years. All development of Mach3 ceased eight years ago and Mach4 is light years ahead, albeit a steep learning curve.
Fusion has a Mach4 post, which can with a few keystrokes be upgraded to four axis.

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Roger- Look at Commander and nighthawk from cnc3d. I'm about to use them on 2 machines after much research.. Peter

https://www.cnc3d.com.au/nhc

[joeavaerage]

Hi peteeng,
dont suppose you know whether there is a post, and a four axis post at that, for Fusion?

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Craig - Fusion has many many posts. I'll have a look for what controller? Peter

[joeavaerage]

Hi peteeng,
for the controllers you are recommending, the Commander or Nighthawk.

Have you downloaded the CNC program that goes with that controller? Is it ANSI compliant?

Might be a great controller but if you cant get a post then its 'disconnected from your CAM'.

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Craig - Heres the fusion post page. Their support is very good so if there is issues talk to them. Post Processors | CNC3D | Gold Coast | QLD | Australia You would have to ask cnc3d about ANSI stuff. Peter

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
I don't use GRBL or whatever variant they use but the OP asks that there needs be a 4 axis post such that Fusion can generate gcode code for the controller, that is why I ask about
the posts this company write/generate/support.

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Craig - cnc3d have a 4 axis fusion post and they are about to release a 6 axis controller. They will have 6 axis posts as well. Peter

[rogerfries]

Hi Roger- Look at Commander and nighthawk from cnc3d. I'm about to use them on 2 machines after much research.. Peter

https://www.cnc3d.com.au/nhc

Commander & Nighthawk look very interesting. I've never seen this option. Watching some videos on it now. The software sure seems more modern and the software seems to be free so there should be no activation codes or copy protection to worry about, nice! All demos seem in Metric, I hope they also do good old freedom units? I also don't see any conversational programming options.

[peteeng]

Hi Roger- You will have to ask cnc3d about the imperial units. Freedom Units? haven't heard them called that before. There are only 3 countries in the world that use imperial now: Liberia, Myanmar and the USA. Seems USA took metric very easily when it came time to decimalise its currency, then stopped with everything else. Sad but one day it may happen, officially adopted by USA in 1866 but the take up is slow... Peter

[RCaffin]

Hi Roger

Stick with what you have got: Mach3 + ESS. Works just fine for me.

Cheers
Roger

[rogerfries]

Hi Roger- You will have to ask cnc3d about the imperial units. Freedom Units? haven't heard them called that before. There are only 3 countries in the world that use imperial now: Liberia, Myanmar and the USA. Seems USA took metric very easily when it came time to decimalise its currency, then stopped with everything else. Sad but one day it may happen, officially adopted by USA in 1866 but the take up is slow... Peter

I recognize the clear advantages of the metric system and I've tried to work in it when I first got into 3d printers that like metric, but old dog syndrome kicks in. I just can't visualize what 13 mm is without in my head saying 13mm is about a 1/2", but was it over or under 1/2" Hum, I forget.... In the end my pore little brain is wasting valuable cycles trying to convert everything that I can't think through my project. Clearly the Metric system is better in every way, but my old brain has been programmed in inches and there are no firmware updates available.

I did post a comment on one of there videos and they quickly replied

"It certainly will be in the next release. It is already implemented. We're just wrapping up a LOT of new features."

So Commander & Nighthawk is still in the running! This sure seems like an active up and comming project! To a new customer the Centroid Acorn while likely rock solid and absolutely usable "feels" like it hasn't seen a software update since the Clinton administration. Linux CNC doesn't even seem usable to me without a consultant to set it up for me (and is still an option). Mach 4 is the easy obvious answer, but I'm not sold yet.

Thanks for the input!

[rogerfries]

Hi Roger

Stick with what you have got: Mach3 + ESS. Works just fine for me.

Cheers
Roger

Yes Mach 3 absolutely works, but for how long? I just expect some windows update will kill Mach 3 for good. If the PC didn't crash, I'd keep running it, but since I lost my licensed screen sets and probing routines I need to start over, so I'm looking to the future. Also this is just a hobby shop a pleasant UI matters. A production shop probably almost never uses the UI, they load the material in the fixture and hit cycle start, then go do other duties while the chips are flying.

[ardenum2]

you can't go wrong with uccnc and its cheap so can always trash it if you dont like it

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
among the things that I want in a CNC solution is about the Gcode and the GUI.

I am most familiar with Mach4 and Mach4's Gcode is a near perfect analog of Fanuc21i which is about as close to an industry standard as it gets. I would investigate all options
and ask and answer for all the different solutions 'is the Gcode required industry standard or close to it'. Things like probing or g31, how is this handled? How about canned cycles like
g83?

The second prong of the investigation is 'is there a credible post'. Fusion has quite a few posts that are written and maintained by Autodesk. They are preferred simply because they have that support,
which is not to say that other manufacturers cannot write a Fusion post, but you need to realise that suddenly your CNC solution has another supplier in the mix.

Another area of research is the ability to craft your own macros. Things like probing routines, automatic tool changers. Some solutions are very good at this kind of thing, LinuxCNC is probably the best,
followed by Mach4 and closely followed by UCCNC. The ability, or lack thereof, of some of the newer solutions is not clear.

The last area of concern is the GUI. Some solutions like Mach4 have a very flexible and editable GUI. I have made screen sets for a guillotine, a break press and a cylindrical grinder in recent years
for various people. Clearly had I been stuck with one screen set these projects would not have been possible. The question you need to be able to answer is 'Do I need or want an editable GUI, ie am I
happy with the screen and its features as is.....or do I want to modify it?'

Craig

[RCaffin]

Yes Mach 3 absolutely works, but for how long?
Contrary to some popular rumours, software does NOT decay with time. A bit is a bit. Backups help of course.

Mach3 runs perfectly well on W10 and W11, and there is no reason to expect that it won't run equally well on W12, when that is released. Yes, you need an ESS for this, but both that HW and the driver SW run very well too. And yes, there are other options which work well too.

There are a LOT of happy users of Mach3 out there.

Cheers
Roger

[RCaffin]

'is the Gcode required industry standard or close to it'.
G-code IS an industry Standard: it was defined by NIST after much industry discussion (and some compromises).
(NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology, USA)

There other languages for CNCs, but they tend to be unique to one vendor. Some of them are a bit weird. A pity for the old vendors who are stuck supporting them: they are in a Catch-22.

NIST G-code is portable across many machine mfrs. That is why it so widely used: like the PC architecture it is open. As to whether it is 'required', that depends on the user, not on the SW.

Cheers
Roger

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

G-code IS an industry Standard: it was defined by NIST after much industry discussion (and some compromises).

In practice that is not correct. Yes there is a defined standard but few pay it any mind, its certainly not binding. To whit: it seems every machine requires its own post, ie the Gcode for each is
subtly different.

Ideally Gcode would be portable, in practice it is not.

Craig

[RCaffin]

Hi Craig

Well, I suggest we are both correct.
There is no questiont that NIST G-code is a Standard.

On the other hand, we all know that many older companies pursue variations of their own. I think that was inevitable, given the historic competitiveness of the machine tool industry and the costs of building older non-PC-based controllers. There was a huge historic investment in the very large circuit boards stuffed full of TTL chips which were needed to get even the basics going. Companies were reluctant to abandon that straight away, even if they had been part of the g-code concensus discussions.

It is interesting to see that those companies closest to full compliance with NIST are also the ones doing the best. Well, better than others who have no compatible products. But it is also worth noting that many newer companies are going for 'full' NIST compliance. They can see where the market is heading. Yeah, could take a few years yet: cast iron machine tools last a long time!

The customer benefits from this (like with the PC).
Cheers
Roger