Honest Appraisal of UCCNC

[daniellyall]

you can use M3 to do 500 lines of code for testing you can use the ESS with M3 or M4 I, do pendant stuff is coming if your pendant is a key sniffer type you can use those in M4 there's a keyboard plug what was done for test reasons that will work with key sniffer type`s.

from the next relise I will only be using M4 as long as the ESS plug does not get broken if I have any problems I still have M3 to use.

if I could I would try the uccnc to see what`s better, I have tried the new version of linuxcnc don't like it one bit.

the main reason I am staying with M4 is I can run a Laser and a router on the same machine and what hard wear I have now works with it, pendant plug is next month sometime hopefully it use`s the same langue as my cad it just does what I wont and it`s not quite finished yet.

so badwolf stick with the uccnc for now I will give you a update when I do some cutting next week if you wont, I think uccnc is going to do a plug for M4 as well dubble can you answer that question please

[Bad Wolf]

Edit due to relevance.

[Bad Wolf]

if I could I would try the uccnc to see what`s better, I have tried the new version of linuxcnc don't like it one bit.

the main reason I am staying with M4 is I can run a Laser and a router on the same machine and what hard wear I have now works with it, pendant plug is next month sometime hopefully it use`s the same langue as my cad it just does what I wont and it`s not quite finished yet.

You would need to check with dubble to see if your hardware is compatible (maybe it only works with the UC100) but at 45 Euros it is affordable enough to give it a go. M3 is ugly as sin and I like the cleaner interface of M4, but I am still leaning towards M4 because at this time it still has a considerable development lead over UCCNC.

There are a lot of little things like pendant support, spindle support, homing device support, tool changing support, better 4th axis support etc that seem to me to be easier to set up and use on M4. I'm not saying that they are better in those areas but my perception is that M4 would be the more advanced in those areas.

YouTube is probably my number one resource for how to use various software, unfortunately M3 / M4 has a HUGE head start on UCCNC for learning how to set things up and what they do. I recently had a configuration problem that was causing me a massive headache but a quick trip to YouTube would have had it solved in a flash if someone talked me through it and I could see what they were doing.

Who knows maybe YouTube videos is the way UCCNC gains market share, I only discovered M3 through YouTube.

[daniellyall]

the uc software is younger than M4 his new release my bridge the gap, 45 Euros here is $70 cam plus $120 for uc100 plus freight would bring it way over a $200 so it about the same as a ESS or a PMDX

[Bad Wolf]

the uc software is younger than M4 his new release my bridge the gap, 45 Euros here is $70 plus freight would bring it way over a $100 so it about the same as a ESS or a PMDX

Why would there be freight? You just get a license file in an email. Was about AU $70 for mine, which is still considerably cheaper than US $200 for M4, that is why it is so hard to swallow paying for it twice (M3 and M4).

I think US $200 is too much and could with a huge stretch justify paying that only because I expect it to be infinitely better than M3. I am working on the assumption that they have taken everything they learned in M3 and applied it to M4.

Don't get me wrong the code in UCCNC seems stable enough (no nasty crashes) it just lacks the finesse of the longer available product.

Who is ESS?

[daniellyall]

don't you need a uccnc controller to run the softwear

Home

[Bad Wolf]

Ok that must be the smooth stepper I have seen mentioned about the place.
UCCNC is the software, UC100 is a USB to parallel adaptor Motion controllers - CNCdrive - Webshop that connects to any generic 6 axis parallel port brake out board.

To be perfectly honest I don't fully understand the relationship between all of these devices I just know that they work. From what I understand you either need a plugin for the USB adaptor in my case, or the BOB if it is integrated into the USB PMDX.

I had to supply the serial number off my UC100 to get the license key for the software to work beyond demo mode. So somewhere along the line there is a driver for the USB - parallel adaptor for Windows to recognise its presence, as well as doing a firmware update when it is connected with the UC100.

It seems to do a firmware update whenever I swap between M3 and UCCNC, so I am guessing the plugin is somehow tied to that update that takes place???

So perhaps the UCCNC only works with the UC100 connected.

dubble can you please explain in English (simple small words) how this works?

[daniellyall]

I know what they are and how they work I had to learn the hard way by rebuild a couple of routers one small and one big I only just finished fixing all the problems on the big one.

the UCCNC software only runs with a UC controller just like it only runs in mach3 from the plugin

[Bad Wolf]

So then wouldn't it be possible to write plugins for other hardware like the USS and ESS to work with UCCNC? Or does the hardware manufacturer have to write the plugin to suit other software like CNC Drive does for M3?

[daniellyall]

yer it would be

[Bad Wolf]

Ok so I am starting to get a handle on this, so until other manufactures make plugins for UCCNC, it is only going to be used by UC100 and UC300 users... Which means if I buy other hardware I most likely wont be able to return to UCCNC down the track as it develops.

[daniellyall]

correct

[Bad Wolf]

Any idea if there is any performance difference between the break out boards? I have a cheap DB25-1205 as part of a kit when I had no idea what I was ordering. Just wondering if buying something like a PMDX might improve the smoothness / speed at which the software can cut? I am looking for something that does spindle speed control so it looks like I need something with a relay built in.

[daniellyall]

yep cheap can mean dude expensive can be a dude too but expensive can mean back up, performances is down to a lot of things only ever used a ESS with mb06 v2 bob and a G540 plus super pid for speed control of spindle

[dubble]

Guys, I don't want to offend you, but I must ask a few things and also want to clarify some:

1.) We do not compete with Artsoft, we are business partners and friends for over 10 years, we have a good relation and that we both developing our own softwares will not change on this.
2.) Please respect our support topic threads with discussing the UCCNC software here, there is an Artsoft topic on CNCzone where you could discuss Mach3/4. I'm asking you this, because this topic is about the UCCNC support and not about Mach3/4.

So, please respect this topic and discuss about the UCCNC software, because as the topic's name suggest this thread is about the UCCNC software support.

In this forum topic I will be happy to answer you guys to any technical questions you will have about the UCCNC!
Thank you for your understanding.

[dubble]

Answering your question about plugin-ability:

First of all plugin ability is not yet officially available for the UCCNC, it will be available in the next software release only. I wanted to clarify this for everybody who may read this forum thread.
The plugin interface will make it possible for 3rd party hardware developers to fit their devices to the UCCNC.
The 3rd party device can have access to UCCNC function calls, DRO values, button press events, variables etc.
A plugin can therefor get and set datas from and to the UCCNC and can manipulate things in the software.
For example a 3rd party jog pendant manufacturer could fit their pendant to the UCCNC software to control the jog of the axis with their device via the plugin.
Also forexample a VFD manufacturer could read the spindle speed value from the UCCNC and the M3 button or LED state and could send Modbus, serial etc. datas through a serial RS232,RS485 port etc.

What the plugin interface will not support is motion control, we will not allow the plugin to access to the lowest level functions of the motion planner, because we are not interested in supporting 3rd party motion controllers.
So, the plugin interface is ment to be used with 3rd party hardware/software which can be used as extensions for the software, but the motion control device must be the UC100 and UC300-5LPT or our future developed motion control devices.

The plugins can be written in Visual Studio and the next release will include an example C# plugin project which is basicly the skeleton of a plugin with some example codes.
Visual Studio has intellisense, so accessing the and checking the available functions will be fast and easy which can greatly speedup and make the plugin development easy.

[dubble]

45Euro is 50USD, not 70.

[dubble]

The UC100 is not a parallel adaptor, but a motion controller.
The firmware update when you change between the different softwares is because they work different, therefor the firmware in the UC100 to support and work with the software is also different.
The UCCNC works with the UC100 motion controller. The development version also works with the UC300-5LPT motion controller.

[Bad Wolf]

I have edited a few of the less relevant posts as dubble rightly pointed out the discussion is about UCCNC, and my originally query is about an honest appraisal of its performance compared to other similar software.

daniellyall it was my fault we drifted off my own topic, as I am easily side tracked (sometimes even by myself).

dubble, I will however say that unless you are all part of the same company, or a subsidiary of a parent company you are competitors, even if your not competitive, which of course are two totally different things.

Ok so just gathering all of these pieces together and working backwards, you have the software at the front end (be it Mach or UCCNC) connected to a motion controller, then a break out board. (some of the BOB appear to incorporate the motion controller and break out board together) connected to motor controllers, connected to motors.

Now plugins allows peripheral devices to talk to the software at a high level (like pedants, because when it is all said and done it isn't doing much other than simulating a keyboard key being pressed, and telling the software a USB device is connected), but the motion controllers talk to the software at a lower level (guide the software output to the right pins on the BOB???)...

So it would seem I am probably using the wrong terminology when I am talking about a plugin for the UC100 to talk to M4? Or is it a case of needing a plugin for the application configuration, and firmware to interface between the motion controller and the software?

Would I be correct in assuming that the firmware is stored on some rewritable memory section of the motion controller and really doesn't do much other than route the output of the USB pins to the input of parallel port on the BOB?

Maybe that is an over simplification as it may do other things like carry voltage, but essentially provide a configurable crossover as apposed to a fixed adaptor cable where the pins are fixed?

[dubble]

Thank you.
I think it is better to ask the author of Mach4 about how it communicates with motion controllers.
I'm not competent in this.