Best CNC controller

[phomann]

Things have on quite a bit since GRBL was running on an 8 bit arduino.

Have a look at grblHAL, https://github.com/grblHAL
It can be run on numerous 32 bit processors and boards, including the Teensy 4.1, running at 600Mhz, capable of producing a 100khz step pulse stream.
They also have ports for the RP2040 processor. They also have the IOsender application to feed gcode to these motion controllers.

Yes, they are not as complete in terms of the implemented Gcodes, but they are continuously improving day by day.
Considering you can put an Ethernet motion controller together for well under $100, or a USB one for under $50, it is a viable option compared to some of the more expensive and complex systems out there.

Cheers

Peter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RCaffin]

Could it be that we have two different groups here? One group keen to innovate, develop and explore, and another group keen to use their machine to make things right now.

For sure, I can see the fun in the first category. Who knows where you might end up? Been there in the past.
However, I want to use my machine now to develop some other (non-CNC) HW, without having to worry about losing 6 hours machining through a small SW bug.

Two very different hobbies. Both fun.

Cheers
Roger

[jaguar36]

However, I want to use my machine now to develop some other (non-CNC) HW, without having to worry about losing 6 hours machining through a small SW bug.

Then the Nighthawk is certainly not for you. If you're looking for something you're not going to have to muck around with, LinuxCNC isn't either. (as you've already experienced,) Heck, I'd also say Mach3 isn't either, although that is probably the closest.

It sounds like what you really want is an off the shelf solution with customer support. Someone like Centroid or Machmotion would probably be the best. Dunno if they will work with your existing servos though or if they'd require you to be their full kit.

[RCaffin]

W7, Mach3, ESS, Gecko servoss, 4 axes. Steel, titanium, aluminium, plastics.
No mucking around. I am 'customer support'
Has been running very reliably for many years.

Cheers
Roger

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
OP already has an ESS, so would it not make sense to carry on with Mach? All development ceased on Mach3 eight years ago so I'd have to recommend Mach4.
Among the things that Mach4 does, and so much better than Mach3, is that the screen is highly user editable. If you want a particular screen you can make it.

I've been using Mach4 and an ESS for eight years, use it daily for work. In short it works like it is supposed to.

Craig

[RCaffin]

Hi Craig

Among the things that Mach4 does, and so much better than Mach3, is that the screen is highly user editable. If you want a particular screen you can make it.

I have to dispute this bit about the screens. I have Mach3, and I have modified the UI fairly easily. And there are many customised Mach3 screens created by other people out there.

Whether a new user should go straight for Mach4 is a completely different question. This may be so. I am running Mach3, and I am happy doing so, but we all know there are some deep bugs in Mach3 which cannot be fixed. I did not upgrade at the start because Mach3 had features which Mach4 did not have at that stage. I gather it has those features now. One could argue both ways.

Cheers
Roger

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

I have to dispute this bit about the screens. I have Mach3, and I have modified the UI fairly easily.

So have you actually downloaded Mach4 and tried the editing features? If you have not then I suggest you do. Mach4 is VASTLY better, and this is from someone who has used both.

Craig

[RCaffin]

Hi Craig

I have not really played with Mach4, so I cannot comment on the relative ease of modification.
I was only saying that I found modifying Mach3 to be fairly easy.

Cheers
Roger
PS: am I being lazy about upgrading? Very likely!

[joeavaerage]

Hi,
by comparison Mach4 is a delight to use. In Mach3 you had to use a separate program to modify the screen, then run Mach to see if it worked as you anticipated.
In Mach4 you can edit the screen within the session, and on the fly. If you want to shift a button, or make something bigger or smaller or change the color, you can do so
without shutting Mach down, and see the results instantly.

It seemed that OP was wanting a solution other than Mach3 because he could no longer get the screen he wanted, and in that case Mach4's screen editing feature will really 'spin his wheels'.

Of course screed editing is nice....but you only ever do it when you set your machine up and thereafter its likely left alone, but really its just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more:

https://www.machsupport.com/forum/in...8176#msg278176

Craig

[RCaffin]

In Mach4 you can edit the screen within the session, and on the fly.
Now that is something I did not know.

I guess what we are seeing here is a reflection of the huge increases in performance of PCs over the last decade or so. There was a time when I could run Mach3 and not much else at the same time - but that was on an XP system! Today, especially with a ESS for the real-time control, life is a different matter.

Cheers
Roger

[phomann]

Hi,
by comparison Mach4 is a delight to use. In Mach3 you had to use a separate program to modify the screen, then run Mach to see if it worked as you anticipated.
In Mach4 you can edit the screen within the session, and on the fly. If you want to shift a button, or make something bigger or smaller or change the color, you can do so
without shutting Mach down, and see the results instantly.

It seemed that OP was wanting a solution other than Mach3 because he could no longer get the screen he wanted, and in that case Mach4's screen editing feature will really 'spin his wheels'.

Of course screed editing is nice....but you only ever do it when you set your machine up and thereafter its likely left alone, but really its just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more:

https://www.machsupport.com/forum/in...8176#msg278176

Craig

Like Roger, I prefer Mach3 over Mach4. No doubt Mach4 internally has a lot more going on, but Mach3 works fine. Many years ago I switched to the Aqua screen set as it is very well laid out and had everything I needed.

I looked for a Mach4 screen set that was similar but to no avail. I then tried to create a new screen set that was similar to PathPilot, but he going was so slow with all sorts of quirks and issues I just gave up. To be honest it was no easier to create a screen set in Mach4 than in Mach3. Yes the mechanism is easier to use but to get a usable output is not.

For my mill production work I now use PathPilot. The user interface is clean, is designed for a touch screen and the workflow suits the way I work. The probing and electronic tool height set off is included and just works.

I still have machines that I use Mach3 and Mach4 on. Mach4 needs a better user interface as that is where the users joy or frustration comes from. All of the competing CNC software choices are reasonably similar in the underlying infrastructure, whether that’s Mach, UCCNC, Centroid, Masso, Tormach or Linux.
What makes the difference is how easy they are to use. Mach4 needs to simplify is user interface.
Anyway that’s my viewpoint.
Cheers,
Peter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rogerfries]

Well, my decision is made. For now at least. the machine is going back to Mach 3 to get it back online. I'm going to try the Physics Anonymous screen set. Then I'll play with Mach 4 when I get a chance. I've already swapped out the Linux PC for a Windows PC. Hopefully I'll be making chips again this weekend.

Thanks

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

I looked for a Mach4 screen set that was similar but to no avail. I then tried to create a new screen set that was similar to PathPilot, but he going was so slow with all sorts of quirks and issues I just gave up. To be honest it was no easier to create a screen set in Mach4 than in Mach3. Yes the mechanism is easier to use but to get a usable output is not.

I think that both Mach3 and Mach4 screens are cluttered. They have squeezed lots of things on there. If you compare to many pro controls, they have a lot less going on within the screen. They usually
have physical buttons adjacent the screen, and that relieves the screen designer to need to include button on the screen. This is especially useful for touch screens. The highly detailed Mach (3&4)
screens are such that its too easy to accidentally click an adjacent button because they are so close together, you need more space per button, and therefore fewer buttons.

Having said that I've become very familiar with Mach4's standard issue Mill screen, but I could if necessary simplify it considerably, and would do so if I had a touch screen.
Mach4's screens are arranged as a series of tabs. One common thing to do is craft a screen that suits you and your machine, typically a simplified version of the standard screen,
but not limited to it. That screen will do 90% of your operations however the remaining four, five or six tabs, lets say, have a more detailed screen that you use, but only on occasion, Tool Table
and Work Offset Table for example.

One Of NFS's goals in producing Mach4 was to have a highly editable GUI that allowed an OEM to craft their own screen To this end there are many different features that you can add to a screen,
buttons, toggle buttons, LED's, DRO's, code windows, toolpath windows are just the tip of the iceberg.

For all the flexibility of the GUI, Mach4 is still in essence a Gcode interpreter and trajectory planner, and that works as well and in some cases better than Mach3. There were very few complaints about
Mach3's interpreter or trajectory planner, and likewise there are few if any about Mach4's interpreter and trajectory planner also.

Craig

[samco]

The only comment I have about mach3/4 trajectory planner is that the path following control is pretty poor. (I mean - I haven't looked at it in years) the last I looked - you had to create an angle and feedrate table to hopefully follow the path.

https://www.machsupport.com/forum/in...?topic=38725.0

With most other controls you can just set the tolerance - so if you are doing profiling - you can say go as fast as you can up to the given feedrate - but don't deviate from the gcode path by a given amount.

ie - G64P.005 says always keep the tool within .005 of the programmed path. (so - if you are coming to a corner - slow down so the max deviation from the programmed path is .005)

sam

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

The only comment I have about mach3/4 trajectory planner is that the path following control is pretty poor. (I mean - I haven't looked at it in years) the last I looked - you had to create an angle and feedrate table to hopefully follow the path.

That is how Mach3 is and still is. Mach4 used to be that way too, but has changed to a tolerance description about four years ago. The angle table is a way to describe the shortcut taken by Mach,
but is theoretically equivalent to the tolerance method. The tolerance method is however much easier to understand and is universally adopted in Mach4.

With most other controls you can just set the tolerance - so if you are doing profiling - you can say go as fast as you can up to the given feedrate - but don't deviate from the gcode path by a given amount.

The issue is that CV (constant velocity) tries to keep the toolpath moving as fast as possible by taking little shortcuts. In the case of the thread that you cite the OP had a very low acceleration
and consequently the shortcuts were objectionable. Had he increased the acceleration then 'artefacts' become vanishingly small.

The bottom line is, no matter the control, the better the acceleration the better the toolpath following. At every toolpath change of direction the machine must decelerate from its
current trajectory and then accelerate away on the new trajectory. The better the machine can accelerate the better the tool path can be followed, or followed with the least
deviation form the perfect path.

Craig

[phomann]

Hey Craig,
I agree with all of what you have said.
I’d be happy to use Mach4 for my production work if the User interface was easier to use.
I get a lot of customers asking “should I use Mach3, Mach4 or UCCNC?” I normally respond with:
1 - If you are currently using Mach3 and are happy with it, there’s no need to change to Mach4.
2 - If you area complete beginner have a look at the UCCNC software as it is a cleaner layout and is easier to configure.
3 - If you have previous CNC experience look at Mach4.

In my opinion NFS needs to study PathPilot’s user interface and understand why it is so successful. Then use that knowledge to design an intuitive interface that is easy to use by advanced users as well as beginners. If not, they will continue to bleed new potential customers to the ever growing list of competitors.

If Mach4 had an interface similar to PathPilot I’d use it in a flash due to the relative ease of configuration and setup.

PathPilot is designed to control specific Tormach machines so you need to make your machine mimic one of those as much as possible so the configuration changes in the hal and ini files are minimized.

Cheers,
Peter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[samco]

Hi,


The issue is that CV (constant velocity) tries to keep the toolpath moving as fast as possible by taking little shortcuts. In the case of the thread that you cite the OP had a very low acceleration
and consequently the shortcuts were objectionable. Had he increased the acceleration then 'artefacts' become vanishingly small.

The bottom line is, no matter the control, the better the acceleration the better the toolpath following. At every toolpath change of direction the machine must decelerate from its
current trajectory and then accelerate away on the new trajectory. The better the machine can accelerate the better the tool path can be followed, or followed with the least
deviation form the perfect path.

Craig

No.. No no no...

The acceleration should not matter as to how well a machine follows the programmed path. You should be able to tell the machine that you want it to follow within a tolerance. (no matter what the acceleration is.) that is a cop out.

sam

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

The acceleration should not matter as to how well a machine follows the programmed path. You should be able to tell the machine that you want it to follow within a tolerance.

And that is exactly what you can do ....if you are prepared to go slow. If you want to go faster then the higher acceleration is required.

that is a cop out.

BS.

Craig

[samco]

Hi,



And that is exactly what you can do ....if you are prepared to go slow. If you want to go faster then the higher acceleration is required.



BS.

Craig

So - do you know how well mach3/4 is following your programmed path? you don't do you. I can tell you when I am cutting a part - it is following the programmed path within x.xxx. No matter how low or high the accelleration is.

I think it is crazy that if the machine isn't following the path well enough - you need to raise the acceleration.. By how much? how much do I need to raise the acceleration to make the machine follow the path within x.xxx amount?

[joeavaerage]

Hi,

So - do you know how well mach3/4 is following your programmed path? you don't do you.

As a matter of fact I do, I've been using Mach4 for eight years and Mach3 prior to that. In the last few years I use it daily for work, making PCBs mainly.
I need a toolpath to be followed with say 0.02mm or the PCB is likely to fault. I have set the max deviation. If however I dial up too much speed the machine cannot go around the corners
fast enough and my circuit board degrades. At the current time I have my machine set to a max acceleration of 0.15g, but I can push it out to 0.27g, and if I do so I can cut PCBs that much faster
before the same problem arises. I can in fact push the acceleration to over 0.75g, but the machine (800kg of it) lurches around....its scary. I'd have to bolt it to the floor if I wanted to push
that hard.

For a given machining speed the higher the acceleration the closer the toolpath will be to perfect. At some stage if the cutting speed is too high and the acceleration is low then it cannot follow the toolpath,
and that's not Mach, that plain physics which all machines are subject to.

Craig