Mach 4 info

[sailfl]

If you have not seen the announcement about Mach 4.

http://www.machsupport.com/software/mach4/

The new version will cost $200.

[swatkins]

The announcement also said this...
" Because these products are completely new and took extensive development, we are unable to offer an upgrade from Mach3. When Mach4 goes on sale, we will offer it at a discount rate and hope our current customer are able to take advantage of the offer."

We need to watch for that announcement

[DocTanner]

Price is fair enough. The fact it runs on Linux is a nice bonus.

[sailfl]

It looks like it will be easier to modify the screens which will be nice also.

[KenC]

Will see how the features fare. Will compare it with LinuxCNC for sure.

[pblackburn]

Mach4 Hobby released
http://www.machsupport.com/shop/mach4-hobby/

[KenC]

Time to migrate to LinuxCNC

[sailfl]

I am sorry to see that they are requiring it to be connected to the PC. I don't think at this time I will be upgrading.

[racedirector]

Ken... would love to migrate to LinuxCNC however would miss all the good things about Mach3 with Gerry's 2010 screenset. If I could replicate the functionality of 2010 in LinuxCNC I would be there in a heartbeat!

[pblackburn]

It does look to be designed to used with an external motion control in its preferred environment. It says either a Desktop or Laptop. I think it is too early as bugs are bound to show up. I hate to be the guinea pig.

Bruce, writing the code for the options you want can be learned. Gerry has his 2010 screenset (which is a great asset) and it covers most what everyone will do. I like to be able to tailor the app to my needs and not use the app I have in only the way the designer intended. It also better helps you understand the workings of the beast. Whether that is possible with LinuxCNC, I don't know but it is capable in Mach3.

As far as Mach4 is concerned, I have watched companies jump on the bandwagon and purchase software before it is seasoned. It usually is not pretty.

[pblackburn]

I think Gerry has played with the Mach4 demo. I am sure he is making a ScreenSet as we talk about this.

[ger21]

Originally Posted by pblackburn

I think Gerry has played with the Mach4 demo. I am sure he is making a ScreenSet as we talk about this.

Actually, I'm too busy adding box joint capability to JointCAM. It seems to take almost as long adding to the manual as it does writing the code.

I need to wait for the dust to settle before I do anything with Mach4. I don't want to waste time on something that may change, or may not work on all platforms.

The next few months of my time will be spent finishing JointCAM. Once that's finished, I'll take a good look at Mach4, and start the learning process.

I am sorry to see that they are requiring it to be connected to the PC. I don't think at this time I will be upgrading.

If you mean the license being tied to the PC, it's really not a big deal. There's an online license manager, where you can add and delete licenses. Hobby users can create 5 licenses. If you actually need more, then if you call them, they'll let you do it.

It does look to be designed to used with an external motion control in its preferred environment.

Yes, Mach4 was designed to be used with a motion controller. Even if you use the parallel port, it's treated like an external motion controller. This **should** give consistent operation regardless of which controller you may be using.

One of the biggest issues right now is that there are only 3 plugins available.
One is for a brand new device from PMDX, and another is for Vital Systems Hicon (I think). So the majority of people using Mach3 with a motion controller will have to wait for a plugin.

[pblackburn]

Originally Posted by ger21

Actually, I'm too busy adding box joint capability to JointCAM. It seems to take almost as long adding to the manual as it does writing the code.

I can relate to that. After I code and design a front screen for operators to run a robot, the operator manual is the worst part. Trying to convey in a clear and concise manner the operation so everyone will understand....well, that can be hard. It usually leads to many revisions.

[racedirector]

Originally Posted by pblackburn

Bruce, writing the code for the options you want can be learned. Gerry has his 2010 screenset (which is a great asset) and it covers most what everyone will do.

Yea, I love Gerry's screenset, wouldn't use Mach without it. In saying that though, I do have a spare PC so I might install LinuxCNC and see what I can do with it. Won't be able to use though and I run an ESS and as far as I know LinuxCNC does not support it.

And if was going to switch controller software, I would more than likely switch to PlanetCNC's stuff rather than go with Mach 4.

[KenC]

LinuxCNC is an OPEN software, you can customize anything that you wish. The only mlimit is your ability to customize.
I enjoy the clean screen on LinuxCNC, every page only has a few bottoms which really matters.

[bradyaero]

Anybody ever start working with Mach 4? Is there any benefit to it? (Smoother CNC cuts etc???)

Thanks, Greg

[ger21]

It seems like most Mach4 users are new users that have never used Mach3. Most Mach3 users, especially experienced users, are waiting for Mach4 to get to a more complete state.
There's still no CV control in Mach4, although it's supposedly being tested as we speak.
My issue is that all of Mach4's competitor's have a path tolerance setting for CV mode. It looks like Mach4 will have the same CV controls that Mach3 has, which is just not as good as the competition.

I'm seriously considering moving to UCCNC for my next machine. A friend of mine is using it, and it's smoother, faster, and more accurate than Mach3 for 3D carving.

[bradyaero]

Thanks for the link Ger, UCNC looks interesting, the price is also good! For me there are a few quirks in Mach 3 that I have never been able to resolve, the odd bit of gouging or roughness where all should be smooth. I'd like to give something else a try to eliminate Mach 3 as the source of these kinks.

Are you using a smoothstepper or are you using a BOB? (I'm still using a BOB)

Greg

[ger21]

I just use the parallel port.

UCCNC requires their UC100 or UC300 motion controller.

CNC Drive is working on a few new motion contollers (with ethernet and 24V I/O), and will soon be releasing a new version of UCCNC. The original version used a Flash based screen, and they're changing over to an OpenGL based screen.

[pblackburn]

Gerry,
You not saying Newfangled (Mach4) rushed the unfinished product out the door are you

[swatkins]

So what does UCCNC actually do? Is it just a gcode " translator" or does it also do CAM ?

I use bob-Cad now and run the code through Mach3... Would I still need mach3 to use UCCNC ?

[pblackburn]

No, both are a CNC software for controlling a machine.

[ger21]

UCCNC = Mach3

[racedirector]

Guys, hate to go on about it but LinuxCNC blows Mach3 out of the water, that I what I found at least. A bit more difficult to setup but well worth worth it. I am currently trying to get Tormachs PathPilot (LinuxCNC with a pretty face) to play nicely with my machine but I couldn't be happier using LinuxCNC, its come a long way from the old days of EMC.

[ger21]

Maybe, but most people don't want to deal with using Linux. I like using Windows.

[Tom Ayres]

Sounds like you're not selling it Bruce

[pblackburn]

Bruce,
I agree with you that linuxcnc is a better system but people like a system they can easily configure to make it work quickly with little effort. The Windows plays better with most. I haven't had much problems with Mach3 other than the initial setup. After searching the Mach4 forum posts, it seems as if the was released as a beta test instead of a final release. I wasn't too impressed with some of responses from Newfangled either. Think I will be sticking with Mach3 for now.

Bruce, if you haven't already, you should start a thread with the information about setting up linuxcnc, at least the tips and tricks you found so far to help others interested.

[ger21]

I agree with you that linuxcnc is a better system

Until recently, that was arguable.
LinuxCNC had a trajectory planner that didn't work very well with 3D work.
It took Tormach funding the development of a new trajectory planner to make it a more viable option.

Bruce, have you gotten around to modifying the LinuxCNC interface yet?
After having been spoiled by the ability to customize almost anything in Mach3, I now consider ease of customization a very important factor in control software.
LinuxCNC doesn't appear to make things nearly as easy.

[racedirector]

Ah, the Windows debate, one of the moderns age's common occurrences

Tom, I suspect no matter how much selling I do I won't win this one

Pete, the first line of your reply is spot on, LCNC does take a bit of figuring out, took me years to actually do the move. Not quite a zealot yet, just enjoying the outcome at this stage. One day, when I feel totally confident, I will start an LCNC conversion thread for others to see.

Gerry, I will give you the customisation thing, to create a new face for LCNC requires some programming along with graphics skills. Mach has actually spoiled me in that sense and has alot to do with the reason I am currently using Pathpilot, it is a pretty face on LCNC (along with some nice tools thrown in). The LCNC guys look at the software as purely control stuff, as long at the machine is doing what it is told to do the interface is relatively unimportant. One day though I will attempt to create my own interface taking all the good bits from various screens and marrying them together.

As for the trajectory planner, yes there were problems originally and the Tormach guys came up with a better solution. That is the beauty of open source software, users go that change and improvement in the next update, a simple (and free) upgrade brought the change to everyone, it didn't need a whole new version. You have to admit that a company like Tormach switching away from Mach3 to LinuxCNC says alot about the Windows software. They basically turned LinuxCNC into an appliance shielding the user away from Linux itself and presenting it as a control solution that is far superior to the previous option. If there were more "appliances" like that I am sure alot more people would look to the alternatives.

[ger21]

You have to admit that a company like Tormach switching away from Mach3 to LinuxCNC says a lot about the Windows software

It doesn't say anything about Windows software. It says something about Mach3 and possibly Artsoft.
Tormach used a locked down version of Mach3 from about 8 years ago, and probably decided two (or more) years ago that they could no longer wait for Mach4.

A long time ago, Mach3 reached a point where just about every bug fix added more bugs than were fixed. Tormach couldn't provide support for a moving target, so they picked a known version and stuck with it.
Providing support for their choice of control is a much bigger factor than the OS is runs in.