[joeavaerage]

Hi,
I think in this case the standard is whatever Fanuc says it is. 80% of the worlds controllers are either Fanuc or, at least as far as Gcode interpretation, Fanuc clones.
The effective standard is Fanuc21i.

The G-code language, also called RS-274, is a programming language for numerical control. It was developed by the EIA in the early 1960s, and finally standardised by ISO in February 1980 as RS274D / ISO 6983.

That is the official line....but what actually happens is each manufacturer does their own thing. Any good idea gets copied so that brand X may claim the same bragging rights as brand Y.
This process has allowed Fanuc to lead and eventually dominate the industry.

There are many little details that vary from one controller to another. For example in Mach3 this was an acceptable drill routine:

N00130 G82 X-35.0000 Y13.4500 Z-2.2000 F300   R2.0000  P0.100000
N00140 G82 X-15.1000 Y13.5500 
N00150 G82 X-24.9500 Y23.4000 
N00160 G82 X-25.0000 Y3.4500

However that fails with Mach4 ( and Fanuc21i), and is required to be:

N00130  G82 X-35.0000 Y13.4500 Z-2.2000 F300   R2.0000  P0.100000
N00140  X-15.1000 Y13.5500 
N00150  X-24.9500 Y23.4000 
N00160  X-25.0000 Y3.4500

It is really only a subtle change, but in Fanuc21i it is a fault to have a G82 drill cycle without a complete list of parameters, whereas Mach3 was slack about that and assumed
the unspecified parameters were unchanged ie modal.

It is little details like this that prevent Gcode from being portable. The NIST document allows newcomers to the industry to hit the ground running as it were, but really is playing catch-up to
Fanuc.

Craig

[RCaffin]

Hi Craig

That is interesting. I was not aware of the difference. Thank you.

I avoid the whole problem by never relying on carry-overs, or modal defaults. I spell the parameters out in full each time.
This is automatic in my coding; it is never a hassle. It works for me.

Cheers
Roger

[joeavaerage]

Hi Roger,
it threw me for a wee while, and is just one example where a minor difference, in this case where Mach4 adheres to the Fanuc21i Gcode interpretation whereas Mach3 does not.
The Fanuc21i interpretation and the RS247D standard are in agreement and the drill cycle G82 is modal, and always has been. Thus there is no need to include a G82 in each block,
just another (X,Y) coordinate is required, but if you do issue a new G82 then you must do it completely.

Just looking through the GRBL Gcode list and there are a number of Gcodes, G68 (axis rotation), all of the canned drill cycles are missing, G99 (subroutine end) is missing.
Quite frankly if that is the true extent of the GRBL Gcode, then its for a toy.....its not a serious contender.

https://www.sainsmart.com/blogs/news...uick-reference

This is my recommendation to OP, go through the Gcode manual of each and every controller that might interest him to see if all or any of the 'standard' Gcodes are missing.
Who wants to go to the expense of buying a controller and software solution, integrating it into your machine, only to find it cant do subroutines, or cannot access
or arithmetically process pound variables? Its too bloody late after you've spent all that money and spent all that time.

Craig

[shineworld]

In the world there are standards, which try to define the guidelines and starting bases of a technology, in this case the RS274D-NIST standard is one of them.

The CNC system builder, I am a case in point, starts from one of these standards, be it NIST or DIN or etc., and implements the indispensable basic functions.

Then of course, depending on the application area of their CNC controls they will go on to add specific G/M commands to better support that area, or to add behavior to standard operation, and that is how a "dialect" or branch of language specialization is born.

Of course, one always tries to stay as close to the standard as possible.

[RCaffin]

Hi Craig

but if you do issue a new G82 then you must do it completely.
I wonder whether that restriction is in the published NIST Standard? I read up as much as I could find (at the time) and I cannot remember seeing that one. But memory and age . . .
If Mach3 has its own kinks . . . happens!

I looked up that URL for GRBL. Oh Dear. How very deficient! No M98 or M99? Skip it. No drill macros? Skip it.

Odd choices by the programmers.

Cheers
Roger

[joeavaerage]

Hi Roger,
remember that GRBL started out for 3D printers, and for that purpose it might be adequate.

I can only believe there is a better, much better version out there. I find it hard to credit that anyone could consider this example as suitable for CNC, and yet many do, ergo there must be a better
more complete GRBL Gcode suite out there.

It does rather illustrate the point that OP should do his homework. There are a number of these open source Gcode interpreters out there, but to settle on one without a full industry standard Gcode set would be
a mistake. The regular contenders for hobby CNC, the likes of Mach, UCCNC and LinuxCNC are at least well known and proven performers. At the risk of being called 'deficient in imagination' I would stick to them.

Craig

[RCaffin]

Homework - yes indeed!
Cheers
Roger

[samco]

What problems are you having with linuxcnc and mesa? The linuxcnc forum is full of very knowledgeable people and very helpful.
https://forum.linuxcnc.org/forum/index

[jaguar36]

Odd choices by the programmers.

Keep in mind GRBL is designed to run on an almost 15 year old Arduino Uno with a 16 Mhz Atmel ATMega328P. Its only got 32Kb of flash and only 2Kb of SRAM. The fact that they've squeezed as much functionality into as they have is amazing, and as Craig mentioned, it started as a 3D Printer controller. Its great that a very usable controller exists for like $10. The stuff its missing is really a non-issue at the hobby level.

I've been using it for years and have never been limited by it. I considered 'upgrading' to LinuxCNC multiple times, but there really doesn't seem like any benefit for a hobby level open loop stepper CNC.

The Nighthawk controller that has been mentioned is based on FluidNC, which is a successor to GRBL designed to run on ESP32's. I don't think it supports many more Gcodes than GRBL does.

[rogerfries]

What problems are you having with linuxcnc and mesa? The linuxcnc forum is full of very knowledgeable people and very helpful.
https://forum.linuxcnc.org/forum/index

I was definitely on that forum and there are some absolute geniuses there that really try to help. I'm just a fish out of water in Linux. I did get the basics working, but with nothing but constant frustration. While Linux CNC has a install wizard, there is no configuration maintenance program so your left editing config files which just feels stone age to me and find the screen sets unusable to me. I'm red green color blind and really struggle with the screens. While I grant that Linux CNC is likely the BEST solution, most configurable and I'm sure I could build my own screen sets. I'm just not enjoying the Linux experience and it's a hobby for me, so I'm looking for something more friendly to a Windows guy with very limited time available shop time. To be clear my issues were small, but every issue was painful. Unless I find a friendly LinuxCNC consultant to train me and help me through the process. I think this is out.

[rogerfries]

Hi Craig

but if you do issue a new G82 then you must do it completely.
I wonder whether that restriction is in the published NIST Standard? I read up as much as I could find (at the time) and I cannot remember seeing that one. But memory and age . . .
If Mach3 has its own kinks . . . happens!

I looked up that URL for GRBL. Oh Dear. How very deficient! No M98 or M99? Skip it. No drill macros? Skip it.

Odd choices by the programmers.

Cheers
Roger

Hi Roger,

I'm really considering the Nighthawk controller from CNC3D once they implement Inches in there Commander software. The UI looks pleasant, modern and much easier to use than Linux CNC or Mach. You point out the deficiencies in the Grbl controllers. Please help me understand why I would care about this. I'm guessing these missing features would only matter to a person hand writing G-code? As long as the part I draw in Fusion is mapped to the correct motion, why would I care how it's done in the G-Code? If I understand correctly without the subprograms and drilling macros you mention, the result would just be a really large G-Code file, but should not effect performance of the machine or the quality of the part. Am I wrong? I will not be hand writing G-Code. I really welcome the criticism and other points of view. I don't want to trade too much capability for a pleasant user interface, but the UI is part of the equation especially for a home shop that is just trying to make cool stuff for fun and not cutting parts for money.


Thanks!

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
to be honest I think you are being rather hopeful.

You are expecting a post to generate a string of code that replicates a G82 drill cycle for instance?

Fusion of whatever CAM you are using, will request a peck drill with full retract, ie a G82, because it is a standard G code operation, and you expect a post to make that combined
cycle out of a string of finer commands? This post is written by whom? Do you have access to the source code to edit or otherwise craft it? Do you have the software skills to write your own post?

I am OK with software but not at that level. Aside from anything else I want to make parts with my CNC machine....I do not want to invest hundreds of hours composing software for it.
When I need a part I draw it in Fusion, then generate a toolpath, again using Fusion, simulate it, then run the code on the machine to make the part. There is no time allowance for writing or tweaking
software to get decent Gcode.

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Roger F - I spoke to the Nighthawk software engineer yesterday and he said that inches was implemented now. So investigate it further. Peter

[rogerfries]

Hi,
to be honest I think you are being rather hopeful.

You are expecting a post to generate a string of code that replicates a G82 drill cycle for instance?

Fusion of whatever CAM you are using, will request a peck drill with full retract, ie a G82, because it is a standard G code operation, and you expect a post to make that combined
cycle out of a string of finer commands? This post is written by whom? Do you have access to the source code to edit or otherwise craft it? Do you have the software skills to write your own post?

I am OK with software but not at that level. Aside from anything else I want to make parts with my CNC machine....I do not want to invest hundreds of hours composing software for it.
When I need a part I draw it in Fusion, then generate a toolpath, again using Fusion, simulate it, then run the code on the machine to make the part. There is no time allowance for writing or tweaking
software to get decent Gcode.

Craig

I was all set to order the nighthawk, but now you guys have me worrying about these missing functions. Is this really a problem or just a theoretical problem? I do need to het a part cut, so I think for right now I'll go back to Mach 3, but this is not the end. I'm still looking for a better option (For Me). Anyone try the MACH 3 screen set by Physics Anonymous?

Thanks for the insight on the G-code! and all comments.

[peteeng]

Hi Roger F - I have not used Nighthawk yet. I intend to in the next 2 weeks. I use Fusion and uccnc currently. I expect Nighthawk to behave the same as uccnc. So I use Fusion CAM, generate the gcode via a post and run it on the machine. It should be that simple. If you want to do coding then go for it. It all depends on your mental bents. I don't do coding I let Fusion do all the work in that area. I watch the simulation carefully, sometimes if I run it fast I miss things. But then its a matter of either setting up a fix program or fix the current program and run from whatever line is needed. Fusion has 19 drilling, reaming and boring giggles to pick from. Spellcheck changed cycles to giggles I like that. I have found the response time and quality better then the uccnc support with the Nighthawk staff. I'm told there are 75,000 downloaded Commander codes out there so they have a few runs on the board... I see Nighthawk as a modern, flexible cnc control solution with lots of ernest development going on that will continue to go on.... I'll know more soon. Peter

[jaguar36]

Hi,
to be honest I think you are being rather hopeful.

You are expecting a post to generate a string of code that replicates a G82 drill cycle for instance?

Fusion of whatever CAM you are using, will request a peck drill with full retract, ie a G82, because it is a standard G code operation, and you expect a post to make that combined
cycle out of a string of finer commands? This post is written by whom? Do you have access to the source code to edit or otherwise craft it? Do you have the software skills to write your own post?

Fusion has a post for GRBL, so yes it will generate the full gcode for a peck drill cycle. It's maintained by autodesk so you don't have to worry about it. None of the 'missing' gcodes will ever be an issue if you're using Fusion for your CAM.

As for the OP, if you've got Clearpath servo's already, the Nighthawk would be a waste for you. It's meant to be used with stepper motors. (It has 4 4.5A stepper drivers built in). If you want to give CNC3D Commander a try you would only need to get an Arduino for a couple bucks and you should be able to wire it up with your servos. CNC3D commander doesn't need the Nighthawk controller, it works fine with any grbl-type controller.

I tried CNC3D commander this morning however and was not very impressed with it. I perfer Bcnc.

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

I was all set to order the nighthawk, but now you guys have me worrying about these missing functions. Is this really a problem or just a theoretical problem?

That is a good question, and certainly one that I do not have a definitive answer.

It rather reminds me of the debate that was had quite some years ago about RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computers), and how they were going to disrupt and displace
CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers). If you think about smart phones, tablets etc all using RISC processors then that prediction has proven true. However all PC's, including
the one I'm typing on at the moment is a CISC machine, so the prediction that CISC was going to disappear was false.

In large measure it depends on what you are doing this hobby for.

If you want to innovate, maybe new designs, or materials, or controls or whatever, then choosing the 'newest' thing is probably going to take you in the direction that you want to go.

If you want to build a good solid and working machine tool, then sticking to the tried and trued and making the best you can within that range of designs, materials and controls
makes sense.

I put myself in the later camp. When I invest dollars, especially thousands of dollars, and countless hours I demand that the technology I'm using is going to result in a credible result.
Just because NASA can get something to work does not mean to say I can replicate it. NASA have vast resources, if an idea craps out, they can try again somewhat differently. If I spend
$5000NZD (on my fourth and fifth axes for example) and it fails....there is no spending another $5000NZD....I just don't have it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy designing and building the best I can, and have had to learn so many different things in the process, but I have, by-and-large stuck to exploiting the best
of available technologies, processes and materials, rather than pushing the boundaries. In those circumstances where I'm am trying something new or innovative I have to weigh
the cost in time and money against a potential failure. Will I chance it? I'm not exactly risk averse....but neither am I a big risk taker when I've put $5000NZD on the line.

If you need a machine tool, and the emphasis is on 'tool' then sticking with the tried and trued solutions like Mach, UCCNC and LinuxCNC are indicated, if you are interested in exploring
new idea then Nighthawk may well be the go. I mean 'what can go wrong?' ......right??

Craig

[rogerfries]

Hi Roger F - I have not used Nighthawk yet. I intend to in the next 2 weeks. I use Fusion and uccnc currently. I expect Nighthawk to behave the same as uccnc. So I use Fusion CAM, generate the gcode via a post and run it on the machine. It should be that simple. If you want to do coding then go for it. It all depends on your mental bents. I don't do coding I let Fusion do all the work in that area. I watch the simulation carefully, sometimes if I run it fast I miss things. But then its a matter of either setting up a fix program or fix the current program and run from whatever line is needed. Fusion has 19 drilling, reaming and boring giggles to pick from. Spellcheck changed cycles to giggles I like that. I have found the response time and quality better then the uccnc support with the Nighthawk staff. I'm told there are 75,000 downloaded Commander codes out there so they have a few runs on the board... I see Nighthawk as a modern, flexible cnc control solution with lots of ernest development going on that will continue to go on.... I'll know more soon. Peter

Hi Pete,

I'm very interested in your experience, Please share! The software looks fantastic, no doubt the support will be top notch! I called there yesterday and spoke to Dave who I believe is the primary developer if not the company owner. We spoke for a long time, way over an hour and he knew I was a home hobby guy working on a mill built in the Jimmy Carter administration. The software does not have any extra IO pins or customizable screen sets, it's more the "Apple Computer" solution works amazing as long as you use it as intended. Normally this would aggravate me, but right now I could use a simple solution that just works and it seems to have just about everything I need. He mentioned there is a pro version on the horizon that will support for ATC, but sadly I have no ATC on my machine. I did mention the missing G-M codes, but I probably did not state the question correctly or did not fully understand his answer as i'm NOT a G code guy! I know there are lots of them in the field, but I think most are running lasors, plasma & routers. I'm not sure how many mills are installed. I feel it's going to work just fine. Thanks for posting!

Roger F

[peteeng]

Hi Roger F - I have been given a NH 2.1 card by a client to play with. I was going to get external drivers and set up an 80V system. But I think I will get the latest card to see how that goes. I have a built machine that goes soon. I have a rule I can't start on a new machine until the current development machine leaves the shop. The current machine called Frankie should leave in 2 weeks. I have mustered lots of parts for the new one which is code named "Leftovers' so maybe the 2.1 is a better fit for that machine Peter

[jaguar36]

The software looks fantastic, no doubt the support will be top notch! I called there yesterday and spoke to Dave who I believe is the primary developer if not the company owner.

I ran a job on the CNC3D's software, the Commander this morning, and it works fine, but it is pretty far behind other controllers. It has some nice features for setting up your parameters, but for actual daily use its pretty lacking. It doesn't let you resize the view, so if your display resolution isn't the same as whatever its built on it will only work in a window. it also has no live view of what is happening, so you can't see if you are about to crash the machine or not. It does have a 3D view, but the performance on that was pretty poor (at least on the old PC running my CNC.)

If you do get a Nighthawk, I'd recommend using one of the other G-Code senders, something like UGS or Bcnc