Help with Rapid Z, Plunge, and Home/Start Position in VCarve

[IslaWW]

Bill...
I'm guessing earlier than that. ShopBot was around in the late 90's and LinuxCNC aka EMC was around long before that. Most in those days followed what EMC (open source) had laid out. There are also a good number of big iron controllers going back to the 80's. Thermwood was one of the early adopters.

[garylmast]

I'm guessing earlier than that. ShopBot was around in the late 90's and LinuxCNC aka EMC was around long before that.

I got my first computer for my business in 1980 or 1981. It was the size of a refrigerator and had a fixed 5mb hard drive. The 5mb removable disk was about 20" in diameter and about 3-1/2 thick. The operation systems was Linux. I hired a Hippy who spent time in Haight Ashbury as my programmer. I have no idea how much dope he smoked before I hire him, but a least I didn't have to do my books by hand.

Gary

[LittleGreyMan]

The operation systems was Linux.

Gary, in 1980 the OS was probably Unix. The Linux kernel was released in 1991 and Linux in 1992.

[garylmast]

LGM, Like I said, my computer programmer was an old Hippie and my memory is only good for a few minutes anymore, so you're probably right. Gary

[wmgeorge]

I guess I should qualify my statement about Mach3 or Artsoft being the first PC based CNC control system, that was not built or intended for a particular machine. Seems to still be pretty popular, but as Gary has stated many times, there are much better controllers now,... 17 years later.


Plus I found this online.

Founded in 1996 in Durham, North Carolina, ShopBot Tools, Inc., designs, manufactures and distributes CNC

After I earned my Ham Radio license in 1976 shortly afterward 1978/1979 Both Apple and Radio Shack came out with computers aimed at home and small offices. I started building my own IBM clones running MS-DOS in the mid 1980's and a 5 Mb was a large hard drive, and when they came out with a 20 Mb wow! They fit as I recall inside a 5.25 inch floppy drive bracket inside the computer. I could not imagine anyone needing more than that size!!

[martin54]

The thing I liked about mach3 was that it is not tied to one specific brand of motion control so I could change/upgrade my motion control without having to worry about what software control I needed.
Problem as I see it with things like the Centroid Acorn is that the control software is tied to the specific motion control board that I am using, if my motion control board fails I am completely stuck. Correct me if I am wrong Gary as different companies polices may vary but even if I had a spare identical motion control board I couldn't just pop that in because the software still wouldn't work.
I know that UCCNC s policy is that you have to return your old defective motion control board & once they have received that & you have also provided the serial number for your new motion control board they will generate a new licence code so you can continue using the software. No idea how long that process takes but it is all time that I have no working machine.

I don't actually use mach3 anymore, well I didn't think I did anyway but apparently I am
I switched to UCCNC when I upgraded my motion control to Ethernet, mach3 would have still worked fine with the new motion control board but I thought I was doing the right thing by changing to a more up to date software. Seems to work ok for what I need it to do for now at least.
I know very little about the software side of things & how they work so tend to rely on CNC build forums & other online places for anything to do with that side of the machine.

[IslaWW]

Martin..
Most of todays stuff works similar. You have software, hardware and in most cases a license to use the software that is tied in some way to the hardware. There are a few minor differences between the brands, but unless you choose to carry a spare you will be "down" for shipping time.

The Acorn system is a bit different. There is an I/O board and a controller on it. Watching over the forum the last year shows me that the DIY crowd has been more likely to let the "magic smoke" out of the controller than destroy the IO board. In that case you simply purchase a ~$40 Beagle Bone Green, follow the provided "debricking" instructions and you up and running. You will have to request a new license if you have one of the upgraded levels, but there is no charge for that.

Where I differ from you is that I applaud companies like WinCNC, Centroid and CNCdrive for providing hardware that matches their software. It seems that all the companies that have survived have done this. You may look at being able to plug in any I/O board as a plus, but its a tech support nightmare. Especially after the Chinese started producing hundreds of BOB's that were "compatible with Mach" and shipped them with no instruction. Your products from UCCNC are a much better setup as there is factory support for them.

[wmgeorge]

Your products from UCCNC are a much better setup as there is factory support for them.

But you have lots and lots of "free" online support for Mach3/4 hardly any for UCCNC. There is someone over on CNC Zone having lots of issues with his install on a Fine Line Automation machine, granted its DIY control panel build and install. But its still not working.

The Acorn is something to consider (I would anyway) other than Mach3 but once again limited support. The others are more geared toward commercial machines marketed to end users who are not DIY people, but just want the machine to Run without issues. I am thinking those folks would never come here anyway, they would call for factory support.

I was an electrician for a number of years, built control panels some as large as 12 ft by 6 ft tall filled with relays, motor starters and lots more. I remember the first GE solid state control systems installed on punch presses and other machines. GE Logic control, but the name may be wrong its only been close to 40 years. Before we went to PLC's.

[martin54]

But you have lots and lots of "free" online support for Mach3/4 hardly any for UCCNC

Mach3 has been around for a long time & has built up that kind of support system over those years, its probably not as well supported as it once was & support will probably continue to decrease as more people move to something else, not in my lifetime I doubt but at some point

UCCNC do have their own forum & the people who build the hardware & software are on it on a regular basis, it will no doubt grow as the number of users increase.

Gary we don't differ that much, while I may not support the way things have gone quite to the same extent you do I am not against it, main difference is that I can generally manage without the tech support & you provide it so from that perspective alone there is a big difference

Carrying a spare controller wouldn't be any good to me unless I had another licenced copy of the software that was linked to it, if I changed the controller I still wouldn't be able to use the machine with the software I have until I had sent my old controller back to them & they had provided a new licence for the software I was running.

[IslaWW]

"Carrying a spare controller wouldn't be any good to me unless I had another licenced copy of the software that was linked to it, if I changed the controller I still wouldn't be able to use the machine with the software I have until I had sent my old controller back to them & they had provided a new licence for the software I was running."


I agree. That's one of the many reasons that after building a number of systems with UCCNC, mostly because they were inexpensive and many customers have tight budgets, I swapped to Centroid. My higher end systems will for the most part run on WinCNC, due to my familiarity with them, built in router based features and customer brand recognition.

[wmgeorge]

So for that reason alone, that you can purchase spare or new controllers for Mach3/4 and have on hand for emergencies and reduce your down time would be a big plus. The software has the key not the hardware. With Mach3/4 you will not need someone to fly in and pay (Gary) to replace a controller that fails for reasons other than operator or installer error. There are power surges and lightning strikes. In an industrial plant there are also fork truck accidents.

[martin54]

So for that reason alone, that you can purchase spare or new controllers for Mach3/4 and have on hand for emergencies and reduce your down time would be a big plus. The software has the key not the hardware. With Mach3/4 you will not need someone to fly in and pay (Gary) to replace a controller that fails for reasons other than operator or installer error. There are power surges and lightning strikes. In an industrial plant there are also fork truck accidents.

If I have read Garys post correctly the Centroid stuff he uses doesn't work the same way, I haven't actually had a controller fail (probably shouldn't have said that). I only upgraded because my original rebuild of the machine used mach3 via the parallel port, at the time it seemed like a reasonable way to go & I didn't know about the problems that using the parallel port can cause. Funny enough I never had any problems but decided to upgrade before I did rather than anything else. I only work part time & don't earn very much at all but regardless of that it is still a business so mach4 would be a much more expensive option for me as I would have had to purchase the industrial version rather than the hobby version.

I can understand why you would use wincnc for your builds if you are familiar but your comment about Customers & brand recognition surprised me I wouldn't have thought your customers in general would know it, unless they think it is something to do with microsoft. If your doing upgrades for people with cnc machines then I can understand that many may have heard of it but I would expect them to have heard about a number of other programs as well & not really recognise them by brand.
You learn something new every day so they say

At my age & with what I do then I doubt I will ever have the need for something like wincnc but then I would never spend $150 - $250 on a control computer either
The one I am currently using is one someone was throwing away because it didn't work, investigation showed it needed a new power supply which I had anyway. Guess I must be one of those frugal DIY guys you mentioned earlier

[ger21]

But you have lots and lots of "free" online support for Mach3/4 hardly any for UCCNC. There is someone over on CNC Zone having lots of issues with his install on a Fine Line Automation machine, granted its DIY control panel build and install. But its still not working.

Most of the same people offer free help for both. And you can't always trust the "free" help.

About the guy on CNC Zone you are referring to. His problem has zero to do with UCCNC, and 100% to do with the system he put together. UCCNC is as simple as it gets.

The thing I liked about mach3 was that it is not tied to one specific brand of motion control

This is the main reason why I would never buy a motion controller for Mach3 (or Mach4). How well the system works has nothing to do with Mach or Artsoft, and everything to do with the plugin that interfaces the controller to Mach. Because of this, EVERY controller that works with Mach works differently in some ways, and they all support a different subset of Mach's functionality.

[martin54]

This is the main reason why I would never buy a motion controller for Mach3 (or Mach4). How well the system works has nothing to do with Mach or Artsoft, and everything to do with the plugin that interfaces the controller to Mach. Because of this, EVERY controller that works with Mach works differently in some ways, and they all support a different subset of Mach's functionality.

As I said previously I know nothing about control software & how it works so I am not offering any advice to anyone simply stating what I liked, have & did
It doesn't really bother me if it is all about the plugin or if every controller worked slightly differently because what I had worked for me & did everything I needed it to, not for one minute saying that it was better than anything else & a different software may well have been better for what I was doing, it worked which was good enough for me & if I had bought another control board the same as the one I was using as a spare it would be a straight swap & I would be up & running again.
I can't do that with UCCNC as the licence is tied to the specific controller I have so even if I had a spare identical controller the software wouldn't run. I need to return the old controller & get them to generate a new licence code for the software to work again

[ger21]

I wouldn't be too concerned about having a spare controller. It would be very rare to have one fail. Unless you wire it very wrong.