[winerackmaker]

I have CNC router with an old Sliq Automation controller board, connected to DeskCNC software via a COM port, the hardware of which is good quality Orientalmotor RBD245A-V drivers & Vexta stepper motors. I want /need to upgrade the board to something that resembles 21st century technology using either a USB or CAT-5 ethernet connection and better CAM interface software.

I use Rhino3D CAD for design with the RhinoCAM plugin to generate G-Code, so the solution I choose must have a post-processor among the many that Mecsoft's RhinoCAM supports. I use the CNC for my business so I need to have a pathway to tech support if/when needed.

I am not sure where to turn, given a plethora of "DIY" choices but not many with a tech support backup. Many use Mach4 (of some version) as the software interface, but I've been reading that there are issues with that solution. I came across CNCDrive motion control solution which seems like a viable upgrade.

I reach out to the community to guide me on directions / opinions.

Thanks to you all in advance.
R

[routalot]

What features does your machine have?A basic machine could almost certainly run from an Arduino,providing you are happy in the Arduino ecosystem.You might consider LinuxCNC if you are prepared to make a small effort to find your way round it as it will cope with multiple axes,tool changers and many other things.UCCNC has many fans and is reported to run well.Whatever solution you choose will require an amount of calibration so it helps to have the information that was originally applied to the machine.I have no idea how much servo tuning is involved in each of these scenarios,just as the OP doesn't provide such information and it could be relevant.The inclusion of UCCNC in the package you linked to must make it a contender and there ought to be support at the end of the phone.Maybe a conversation with them would be a good move.

[winerackmaker]

Thanks for responding. Not sure what is classified as a 'basic' machine but I would think mine is one: a simple XYZ router w/a 3 HP spindle powered by a VFD. No features like a tool changer, etc. but I built in a capability to operate an electrically operated pneumatic control valve which I used to do automated nailing of parts clamped on the CNC table.

I like the Arduino ecosystem, having messed around with both Arduino and R-Pi boards and I built a dual-boot Linux Win7 laptop, however the problem with that solution in my case is that there is no RhinoCAM post-processor except perhaps a generic one which Mecsoft won't offer tech support on. While I am capable to ferret out solutions and DIY stuff, it would be a problem if, during work on a project for a client, something goes amiss and I take a week or more to learn-test-fix the problem.

I will contact the CNCDrive people--I just wanted to hear from the collective brain trust here first.

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
I use Mach4Hobby and an Ethernet SmoothStepper and have done for 8.5 years. From the description of your machine I would guess its perfect for Mach4.
Mach4 and UCCNC are just about a dead heat when it comes to basic mills. When you get into lathes, plasmas, grinders and other customized machine types
Mach's scripting flexibility pays dividends....but for basic machines UCCNC and Mach4 are nearly identical in performance and operation.

I use Fusion 360, so I cannot really say what Mecsoft have in the way of post supports.

Mach4 was designed to be almost blow for blow identical to Fanuc21i. So if the CAM software you are using does not have a supported Mach3 or Mach4 post, then you can use a Fanuc21i post,
in most cases seamlessly. Whether UCCNC is amenable to such treatment is more than I know.

Craig

[winerackmaker]

Mecsoft has posts for both Mach4 & UCCNC - that's the reason why I'm more curious to understand nuances (good, bad, ugly) about these. There are also about a dozen Fanuc post flavors, including Fanuc21i.

Mach's scripting flexibility pays dividends....

May I ask you for examples of how you used the scripting capability of Mach4 to either solve a problem or create some other value to your processes?

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
Mach4 uses Lua which is a very small (compact code base) and very fast yet remarkably powerful scripting language. This allows you to automate processes.

This is a simple example. I use a program called EAGLE for making PCB's. Certain parts of EAGLE's output, for drilling the holes in particular is not and exact match for Mach4.
This piece of code converts the EAGLE output to that suitable for my machine, you might like to call it a post processor.

local file = wx.wxFileDialog(panel, "Select Drill File", "", "", "Tap files (*.tap)|*.tap|Text files (*.txt)|*.txt", 
                             wx.wxFD_OPEN,wx.wxDefaultPosition,wx.wxDefaultSize, "File Dialog" );
        if(file:ShowModal() == wx.wxID_OK)then
            path=file:GetPath()
		end
		inputpath=path
		inputfile=io.input(inputpath)
		index=0
		repeat
			previndex=index
			index=string.find(path,"\\",(index+1))
		until(index==nil)
		name=string.sub(path,(previndex+1))
		name="MODDED"..name
		path=string.sub(path,1,previndex)
		outputpath=path..name
		outputfile=io.output(outputpath)
		io.write("G0 Z2","\n","M3 S24000 \n","G4 P6.00 \n")
		inputline=io.read()
		while(inputline~=nil)do
			G82presi,G82presj=string.find(inputline,"G82")
			Rpres=string.find(inputline,"R")
			if(G82presi~=nil and Rpres~=nil)then
				io.write(inputline,"\n")
			end
			if(G82presi~=nil and Rpres==nil)then
				inputline=string.sub(inputline,G82presj+1)
				io.write(inputline,"\n")
			end
			inputline=io.read()
		end
		io.write("G0 Z50","\n","X0 Y0","\n","M30","\n")
		io.flush()
		io.close(outputfile)
		io.close(inputfile)		
end
if (mc.mcInEditor() == 1) then
    m200()
end

This is a simple example. Note that it uses wxWidgets, that in this case has been used to generate a Windows file dialogue to navigate to the file you want to process.

Mach4 has a quite extensive and mostly well documented API, which allows you to write scripts that can effect certain behaviours within Mach's core without having to write C++ code to run in the core.

Mach4 has a pretty complete screen editing suite. This allows you to rapidly and easily compose your own screen sets, adding buttons, LEDs, code windows, toolpath windows etc at will.

Mach4 is modular, so various modules can be used or dismissed as required to achieve certain behaviours. For example there is a good MODBUS module that allows you to communicate
with a MODBUS device through a single consistent data interface. The PLC module and the Ladder Logic module are other notable examples.

One of the design priorities, as described by the lead developer of Mach4, was that it should be readily customisable. This would make it attractive and amenable for OEMs to craft a solution and look
specific to their machine for market differentiation.

Having said that for mills, lathes, plasmas and routers no extra code need be written, all the required operational functionality is already there. Its only if you want something specific that you need to write
some code. I have myself only about three or four chunks of code like the example I posted, all to automate certain processes that I use for making PCBs. There are a considerable number
of one line, two line and three line code fragments that I have added to the basic Mach installation that add behaviours like 'what does the machine do when it encounters a servo 'following error' fault?'
I also have a few bits of code to reflect my desired machine behaviour with regards to my home brew wire pendant.

Mach4 is flexible....if you need it, but is mostly complete as is. LinuxCNC is even better with regards to programmable flexibility....but it requires coding in C, which is not every ones forte.

Craig

[harryn]

I am not sure if it would work for you or not, but the DIY router that I am rebuilding came with mach III.

For various reasons I purchased planet cnc hardware and software, plus the gecko stepper motor drivers a few years ago and am finally getting around to the actual rebuild. ( a number of personal reasons for the delay )

I am pretty impressed with it, but my needs are much more simplistic than yours.

I think the planet cnc setup is definitely worth considering as an option and it isn't all that expensive. I have the 9 axis controller board even though I will never run that many just so I can do things like run two motors per axis, have some spare ports, and know that I won't be taxing the board.

My son setup the software and hardware on his desktop (when he was a teenager ) and it wasn't difficult for him to make the motors all run with almost zero knowledge of cnc.

This forum has a planetcnc support section as well:

https://www.cnczone.com/forums/planetcnc/

[winerackmaker]

@harryn,
I looked into PlanetCNC products, specifically their controllers; I reached out to them to see if there was a RhinoCAM post-processor for their products. Sadly their answer was no, "...but a generic post-processor would most likely work." If I was building a DIY machine, I'd happily use their products.

@joeaverage,
Thanks for that insight and your examples. Not familiar with Lua, but it doesn't look daunting at all. You've got me thinking that a SmoothStepper / Mach4 upgrade might be the way to go. IMO for me it's either that or a CNCDrive / UCCNC combo for the upgrade.

[peteeng]

Hi R - I have used UCCNC for many years (lets see... over 7 years now on several machines) with no issues. I'm sure using Rhinocam with it will be straightforward if you go down that pathway. My most recent machine uses a Knighthawk (commander interface) controller and so far so good. It has many useful features such as WIFI vs a cable and it can be run using a phone. Have a look. Its install has been very easy and the support has been excellent. I like it as its a one box solution. Neat easy to install and run. You can also buy the controller board and use separate drivers, up to 6 axes.. They also have a cheaper version released now called the scribe if $$$ are important.

Nighthawk CNC Controller support / Downloads | CNC3D | Gold Coast | QLD | Australia Peter

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

I reached out to them to see if there was a RhinoCAM post-processor for their products.

Post Processors are usually the product of, written by, and maintained by, the manufacturer of the CAM software.

All CAM software generates an intermediate file in a proprietary protocol that describes the tool path. The PP then converts those 'CAM native instructions' into GCode appropriate
for a specific machine. I seem to recall for instance that MasterCAM had a file called 'xxxxx.mcx', and that was the MasterCAM native file. It did not mean much if you opened it
but once it was passed through a PP then it did. It stands to reason then that MasterCAM would write and maintain PP's. They are commonly written in Java so users can edit and
otherwise manipulate them, but it is uncommon for a user to write their own PP. There are companies who specialise in writing PP's, but their work costs thousands.

I would presume if your company has twenty MasterCAM seats at $15,000-$20,000 per seat and $2500 per year per seat, then the services of a specialist company to craft the best PP
for your machines is no drama....but is prohibitive to single seat users, ie hobbyists.

If you require a PP for a specific machine (or CNC software like PlanetCNC) then ask RhinoCAM.

As an example of what CAM manufacturers 'leave' for individual users to write and/or modify PP's for their own use, this is by Autodesk:

https://cam.autodesk.com/posts/posts...ng%20Guide.pdf

It is a 300+page 'Training Guide'. I rather suspect there will be a reference manual that is much bigger again!!! I myself find the 300 pages entirely enough to swallow. The expectation here is that
while Autodesk might write say a Mach4 PP, and they do....and it is complete up to four axis, it does not have five axis. If I want it I'll have to augment what has been provided with the extra features
required for five axis GCode. Fun, fun, fun.....as I have just finished my trunnion fifth axis, I'll be delving into the PP in a big way over the coming months.

I would expect that a CAM manufacturer would write and maintain PP's for all the basic machines and software types out there, and Fusion 360 has many dozens if not hundreds of PP's, but neither would I expect
all of them to be full five axis with all the bells and whistles. Holding my breathe while Autodesk get around to writing a five axis update for their Mach4 PP is likely to see me die of anoxia....a bad way to go!
That's where I have to roll up my sleeves and get stuck in. I might get some assistance from NFS (manufacturers of Mach4), but realistically 'this is my baby' not theirs.

Having said that; when I was trying to get my fourth axis up and running I got good assistance from the Fusion 360 Forum, and in particular various employees of Autodesk whom are obviously detailed to assist
customers with PP enquires. I am impressed by Autodesks commitment in this regard.

I found some data, and posted in another thread, that Fusion 360 is the most globally widely used CAM software out there with about 24% market share with MasterCAM and Vectric Aspire in vying
for second with 11%-12% each. I must say I was surprised initially, but then came to think of how assiduously Autodesk has worked to get that share with respect to pricing, 'free to hobbyists',
ongoing development, company sponsored support forums etc...then it all starts to make sense. They are trying hard....and it seems to be working. The attached pic comes from CNCCookbook in their
2021 global review.

Note this data was about CAM....not CAD, where Solidworks, AutoCAD and other Autodesk products duke it out for top spot.

You've got me thinking that a SmoothStepper / Mach4 upgrade might be the way to go. IMO for me it's either that or a CNCDrive / UCCNC combo for the upgrade.

Either would be superb. Not that there aren't other good choices, but either Mach4 or UCCNC will more than satisfy.

Craig

[peteeng]

"Not that there aren't other good choices, but either Mach4 or UCCNC will more than satisfy" agreed sort of....

Hi Craig et al - I think there are 100s plus of other good choices and that's part of the problem for newbies and veterans. There is considerable inertia (in some cases loathing) in the thought and practice of learning or adopting new stuff. This effect works for the established products very well. But times change and technology changes and to use a current term a "disruption" will occur. I think we are close to that in the hobby and light commercial CNC ecosystem with 3D printer tech intruding into CNC tech lowering costs and improving performance. I think R needs to explain what he wants to do with his router and what he thinks he may do in future. This will help choose the starting point (and future potential) for this millennial up-grade. If R's machine is in the stone age he will want to jump a few ages to at least the present (4th industrial age or digital age) with some future proofing (maybe) as tech changes quickly and what's good today maybe not "good" in 5 years time.... Mach3 was forced to redevelop to mach4 due to windows tech change. UCCNC will be the "same" in 5 years. But other systems will be quite different and better by then...

eg autodesk has reshuffled its extensions in Fusion360 and in the claim of providing better software increased its prices slightly. Fusion updates every week M4 and UCCNC update rarely. I'm not advocating F360 just an example... I use F360 now and I don't see a commercial rival at the moment. Its a very good all round manufacturing package and steadily gets better. But you still need controllers and drivers... Peter

[joeavaerage]

Hi peeteng,

What can you actually reccomend....as in having used it yourself? You have posted before that you use UCCNC and used it for some years, and just recently experimented with Nighthawk.
You can personally attest to those solutions?.

I use Mach4, and previously used Mach3. For a brief time, about two months, I used LinuxCNC. I do not have enough experience with LinuxCNC, especially a lot of the more interesting features like closed loop etc,
to be in anyway an expert, although I can and do say that its a highly useable solution, even if I did not carry on with it. I do claim that Mach3 is obsolete even if it still works, so my primary experience is with Mach4.

Both you and many others have used UCCNC, LinuxCNC and Centroid Acorn and posted the results that I feel comfortable that the claims made by the manufacturers actually stack up in practice by a number
of users whom I respect. There are indeed other solutions worthy of mention, its just that I'm not confident in recommending them, not because I believe they are in any way bad, but I do not have evidence
that the manufacturers claims are in fact correct.

I am not a big risk taker....the more money I part with on a solution, the more certain I need to be that the solution will do as claimed. Ergo I am comfortable with Mach4, UCCNC, LinuxCNC and Centroid Acorn,
as far as I am concerned they are 'tried and trued'. Can't be bothered with other 'potential' solutions. If you want to spend money on them...go right ahead. I on the other hand require a solution that works
in such a manner that I can produce acceptable parts......my machine is after all for making parts.....not some science experiment.

autodesk has reshuffled its extensions in Fusion360 and in the claim of providing better software increased its prices slightly.

Yes, I have seen how Autodesk is shuffling things a bit. It seems the Fusion Basic subscription is up a bit, but Machining Extensions is down a bit in real terms. Overall my expenditure on Autodesk products
has actually decreased by a few dollars. As I say I was a bit surprised when I came across the CNCCoobook survey, but the more I think about how Autodesk is developing Fusion and getting it out there and in use
its popularity is 'par for the course'. Like or loathe Autodesk there is no gainsaying their commitment to Fusion 360.

Craig

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
having said that I'm not a risk taker I've just paid for this servo off EBay. Its as rough as guts! It is however a direct replacement for the same servo I managed to wreck a few months ago and I really need
a replacement. I paid $170USD for it so expect by the time I get it to New Zealand it will cost $400NZD. The supplier claims it still works, and I'm taking that at face value, but if it proves otherwise I'm prepared
to 'lose' the $400NZD.

There were other offerings that at least looked better, ranging from about $350USD right up to brand new old stock for $3500USD....but I thought I'd give the cheap one a go....who knows.....could
be a winner.

Craig

[peteeng]

Hi Craig & others - I can recommend UCCNC as I've used it for 7 years and it has not given me any grief. One UC100 has blown up with a power surge and that's an easy fix. Recommend surge protectors on everything. Knighthawk (KH)/Commander is new to me but so far so good. I build cnc kits for hobbyists/makers and I have over the years been looking for a one box solution to the path planner/ controller/ driver massive wiring time fraught with errors (occasionally letting smoke out) approach. I have looked at Buildbotics and they seem to be good was going to try them but have used the local Knighthawk as it has 6 axis capability (for my upcoming 5 axis machine then onto a robot). I have used two different Chinese single box solutions but they are at the limit of a large N23 motor and both had issues so won't go there again. The development trajectory of Commander is very good. They are implementing a simple 2.5D cad to cam module (like UCCNC has) and input shaping. They are very good electronics developers and have big plans so over time the product will get better and better as all the issues are in one box under their control vs having velocity planners/controllers/drivers all by different parties. I have not used it much at the moment. I have run my small router and its laser on the KH no problems. I like the wireless connection less clutter.

In R's case it would be good to discuss what he wants to do now and into the future so a good solution can be recommended. Most of my enquiries say they want to do a rotary into the future but with a few machines out there no-one has done that. I recommend if a rotary is in mind do it NOW so you pick the right stuff and don't pay for stuff that your never going to use and in 2 or 3 years' time once your cleverer you'll want a bigger or different machine anyway... So my two strategies would be:
1) start at the leanest possible cheapest place that does what you want now
2) figure out what you want to do in the future and incorporate it all now and start doing it NOW. The people that say they will upgrade into the future find out that's it's not too easy. Plus if your doing commercial stuff (as R says) then you don't want the machine to have weeks of downtime for an upgrade. Better to use that machine and build a new machine
3) if your a tinkerer and that's what the project is about then choose software and hardware that allows you to tinker eg 3D printer stuff and freecad and linuxcnc etc. The tinkerers at the bleeding edge. Look up One tree tech OTT) (3D printer controllers) for instance. So much performance at very little cost but you have to tinker in CNC space. The CNC user base is increasing for OTT and it currently bang for buck is way ahead of M4 and other systems... They will overtake CNC stuff once the CNC user base gets a bit bigger or they have already taken over. All the younger set are familiar with 3D printers so its an easy steppover from that to CNC vs getting involved with M4 for instance. The main juggle/hurdle is the breakup of velocity control / machine control and drivers all from different parties.

I don't want to tinker on the electronics I want to tinker in the structural area. I don't want to spend 2 weeks wiring looms and soldering and worrying about smoke when I turn on the switch!!
Carbon fibre , UHPC etc is my thing so I want the electronics side to be simple and work. Currently Knighhawk/Commander does that for me. Peter by the way you can tinker with KH as well it has its own API...

[winerackmaker]

I think R needs to explain what he wants to do with his router and what he thinks he may do in future.

It seems that there's a slight tendency to overcomplicate here. And while I learn with every new post, and from other places where I've researched, my goal is a simple one--I just want to make the 'best' [subjective, I know] choice to upgrade. Here's my situation, if it helps clarify:

• I have owned this CNC router for almost 2 decades. It has served me well. It came as a package with the hardware & software I've previously listed. The builder of the machine is no longer in business (unable to be reached) and, sadly, I suspect perhaps deceased due to health issues I was long aware of.

• The company that supplied the controller, called Sliq Automation, is no longer in business.

• That controller uses COM1 to communicate with the PC. Most will know that it has been many years since laptops came with COM ports. I've had to source replacement laptops in the used / refurbished market, which is fine. The "newest" one I could find came with Win7 Pro. It is a good OS, however is obviously no longer supported--and companies like Google no longer supports its products, like Chrome, running on that deprecated OS. The laptop is connected to the network, where I store all my files, and serves ancillary purposes, like looking up stuff so I don't need to leave the shop just to access the internet. So there's increased risk through not having the latest fixes & protections. And that era of laptop won't handle an OS upgrade to Win11.
  
  (No, there's no room or desire for me to switch to a huge workstation just for a COM port.)

• My goal is to do a fairly wholesale refurbishing of the CNC during my downtime at the end of this year. I have already (and necessarily) replaced my 3HP Columbo spindle whose main lower bearings finally gave up the ghost. I have purchased a complete set of replacement bearing blocks. And, while the major surgery is in progress I want to update the controller and software. Once that is all complete, I will have a machine that will serve me the rest of my working life.

• I am not enhancing the capabilities of the machine. No toolchanger. No rotary axis. No disco ball.
  
  So, in answer to the quote above: I plan to use the machine the same way I've used it for 18 years.

So, after poking around and coming up with some candidates for upgrades among the way-too-many options out there, I posted on this forum to hear opinions from people who are smarter than me. I thank you all for your thoughts.

I'd looked up Nighthawk as it was mentioned on the thread. Their software, CNC3D, only allows set up in mm. Sadly, living in one of only 3 countries in the world that has not adopted that superior system, I need to be able to work in inches.

For me, it gets down to this:

1. Smoothstepper with Mach4, or,
   
2. CNCDrive products with UCCNC, or,
   
3. (Insert another good controller here) with Mach4 or UCCNC.

Care to vote? (with a brief why) I know joeaverage's vote - and he has good reason for his choice.

(This will be my last post on this thread. Again: thank you all for your thoughts.)

[peteeng]

Hi R - Knighthawk/Commander works in inches or mm. This is recent and may not be on the website, I remember a news note from them stating they had implemented inches . Email them to confirm. Peter

[peteeng]

Hi R - I confirmed with cnc3d that Commander does have imperial units option. Cheers Peter

[peteeng]

Hi R - Here's a screen shot of the Commander mm/Inches.. I spoke to the cnc3d people and they updated the info immediately. Peter

[winerackmaker]

Peteeng, you are correct. I confirmed that CNC3D has capabilities for imperial units, with the exception of, "It is important to note that some settings must be metric such as the acceleration, max speeds and steps per millimetre." as related to me by a tech at [email protected].

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
that is common.

Mach (3&4) has setup units and operational units.

Set-up units, you choose when you build the machine and then leave alone thereafter. You can choose either metric or imperial. They describe the machine, so accelerations, max velocity, Steps per unit
and the machine extents, ie limits. In Mach you can choose either metric or inch. Once you set the machine up you never have to touch them again. Rather sounds like the Knighthawk can only use metric setup units.

Operational units are just that, the units used on a job. Most of my jobs are in metric, so a 'g21' at the start of the job ensures that Mach interprets the Gcode in mm's. If I get a toolpath from someone else in inches then a 'g20' at the start of the job
ensures that the Gcode is interpreted in inches. Easy.

The machine units underly the operational units but excepting setup things like jog increments you never see them.

Craig