Machsupport Forum
Mach Discussion => General Mach Discussion => Topic started by: wmgeorge on January 09, 2018, 08:07:41 AM
-
Is anyone using Mach3/4 for serious machine control?
I am seeing large 4x8 foot router tables with prices exceeding $20,000 and wondering what control system they are using and if one that used Mach3/4 could ever be considered?
-
I am using Mach3 for serious CNC machine control and it is more than earning it's keep.
I am using Mach4 as a 'one day' replacement for Mach3.
Price / cost of the machine has little to do with it.
Tweakie.
-
I am using Mach3 for serious CNC machine control and it is more than earning it's keep.
I am using Mach4 as a 'one day' replacement for Mach3.
Price / cost of the machine has little to do with it.
Tweakie.
OK but surprise I am on another forum (not CNCZone,) and the used prices are starting at $20,000 USD (4x8 foot table) and new $50k on up. The one thing that comes out in the discussion, "they are using real control systems, not Mach3"! Been involved in hobby CNC for years and know spending Lots of money upfront does Not guarantee that You will make lots of money! Its how you run your business and your market. Thanks for the reply.
-
Using M3 on a plasma table and a mill - making money for me, cant see much benefit in spending more for i do.
-
We have Medium sized VMCs, medium sized lathes, and OD Grinders that are running Mach3 and Mach4.
-
Is anyone using Mach3/4 for serious machine control?
I am seeing large 4x8 foot router tables with prices exceeding $20,000
A $20K 4x8 router is a fairly low end machine, from my perspective. But I use a $150K router every day.
WinCNC is a popular control in the $20K-$50K price range of machines, and costs about $1500-$3000, depending on options.
I've seen older big routers like a Biesse converted to use Mach3.
Would I use Mach3 on a new machine today? No, there are better options available. But I still use it on my current machine.
Mach3 was written over 10 years ago, and development stopped over 5 years ago.
Mach4 is probably much, much better than Mach3, but hasn't won a lot of people over, for a variety of reasons.
-
I agree. I would fully recommend Mach4. It may take more time to configure than Mach3, but it is well worth it in the end.
-
Run it from an ethernet connected laptop to a motion controller and buy and configure two or three identical computers as spares. The greatest advantage of windows in my book is being able to have a CAM program right on the machine to tweak programs.
-
Although, I'm pretty sure the Mach team suggest strictly running Mach and nothing else on the PC. I also am guilty of running my cam, Fusion 360, along side Mach4. It's like a built in wizard on the machine! ;)
-
Is anyone using Mach3/4 for serious machine control?
I am seeing large 4x8 foot router tables with prices exceeding $20,000
A $20K 4x8 router is a fairly low end machine, from my perspective. But I use a $150K router every day.
WinCNC is a popular control in the $20K-$50K price range of machines, and costs about $1500-$3000, depending on options.
I've seen older big routers like a Biesse converted to use Mach3.
Would I use Mach3 on a new machine today? No, there are better options available. But I still use it on my current machine.
Mach3 was written over 10 years ago, and development stopped over 5 years ago.
Mach4 is probably much, much better than Mach3, but hasn't won a lot of people over, for a variety of reasons.
The 20k is a one year old used Camaster. That poster is looking at spending $60k USD on a new one. He is a small business with only one other employee.
-
Camaster's use WinCNC.
-
I have a vendor with a 10 foot x 20 foot x 4 foot, five axis router they paid 750K for it! They got a quote to build two aluminum molds for $600K and decided to put the money in a bigger machine since they already had a smaller one. Very cool machine.
-
This is a muddy water issue for me. There are many issues related to implementation of the hardware side of things. I have been recently been party to a brand new 30,000 dollar cammaster router which runs WINCNC which comes Turn Key, drop it on floor level it hook it up (i did the hooking up) and it runs. it seems that all the bugs have been worked out of the machine. I think that most of problems with mach3/4 at this point are actually implementation (hardware) issues. I Feel these new hardware and software systems are standing on the shoulders of The Mach product. At first glance WinCnc looks like a re-skinned version of mach. I am pretty sure it is not but on the surface they do. I have a friend who is ditching his mach3 setup for this http://www.centroidcnc.com/centroid_diy/acorn_cnc_controller.html He Is using this on his mechmate 4X8 router I am very curious to see how this turns out This will give a side by side comparison. His brother is running a bladreunner (linux) system on his plasma machine.
I am currently dong the groundwork for Mach installation on 3 machines so this is a hot topic for me I am Looking very hard at the CNC-TEKNIC servo motors for all 3 (the CAMMASTER router uses these with belt drives)
Happy Hunting
archie
-
Is anyone using Mach3/4 for serious machine control?
I am seeing large 4x8 foot router tables with prices exceeding $20,000 and wondering what control system they are using and if one that used Mach3/4 could ever be considered?
So bottom line I have a US Vendor who I have purchased CNC and laser machines from in the past based in Chicago who has a Chinese 48x48 CNC Router which looks very good, with ball screw on the Z and rack and pinion on the rest, automatic oilers and Ethernet controller. Water cooled 3 Hp spindle with VFD, I have the 1 Hp model now and its great. With Mach 3 or as an option that Acorn controller. Price is less than 1/2 of others on the market I have looked at as CAMaster and two of those others are Chinese made Re-Branded very popular makes. My question is if I have issues with the Mach 3, and the rest of them machine is good a control change out to WinCNC is something I could handle.
So can Mach 3 handle a router without issues? From what I have read here it can, but Tool changers and the rest not so much.
-
Hi,
Mach3 is fully capable of controlling a router. It is true that you will have to write some custom code for your particular machine for ATC.
Note that all development ceased on Mach3 five years ago and while it remains popular and used by many Mach4 is recommended for new projects.
Mach4 is fully capable but will likewise require some coding to enact your specific ATC requirements.
Craig
-
So can Mach 3 handle a router without issues? From what I have read here it can, but Tool changers and the rest not so much.
Tool changes and other stuff is the easy part.
Big routers run at high speeds, and Mach3's biggest weakness is it's trajectory planner. If you want to cut in the 600+ ipm range, you either need a very powerful, very rigid machine, or you'll run into issues with corner rounding, or the machine stopping at corners to prevent rounding.
Having said that, there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of big routers running Mach3.
This is not really the place to discuss Mach3's competitors.
-
Hi ger21,
I understand that Mach3 uses a fairly simple trapezoidal trajectory planner which results in significant 'jerk' at the transition points.
I recall that there was considerable discussion some years ago about introducing a third order planner for Mach4. I did not pay a great deal of attention
at the time.
I have subsequently migrated to Mach4 and like it. There are no extra or unexplained settings that make me think that a third order planner was ever implemented.
Are you at all familiar with the history of Mach4's development...did in fact a third order planner get implemented or if not was there any discussion/reasoning why not?
Craig
-
When Mach4 was first released, I had asked about it, and was told it would be about a year after Mach4 was finished.
I don't really follow Mach4 development, but I wouldn't expect to see it for at least a few more years now.
To be fair, I don't think any of the competition have it either, but most have more control over the path deviation.
-
Hi ger21,
thanks for your reply.
but I wouldn't expect to see it for at least a few more years now.
Mach4 does not to my knowledge have a third order planner despite the early discussion. I imagined that such an absolutely basic piece of Mach could not be replaced
without destroying Mach4....but given the modular nature of Mach4 perhaps its not the case.
but most have more control over the path deviation
I have seen a couple of threads which deal with path deviation verses Constant Velocity settings. To be honest I did not really invest the mental effort to follow it.
I did have occasion to skim read a couple of academic papers on the Net that were concerned with path deviation. The maths was frightening.....but then I have done
that sort of stuff before...its usually a matter of mental application rather than genius or lack thereof.
Do you have any recommendations of software solutions that I might view to see first hand how others have handled path deviation?
Craig
-
path deviation verses Constant Velocity settings
Path deviation settings basically are constant velocity settings.
The difference is that Mach (3 & 4) let you control (to some extent) when and how much corner rounding will occur, but other software lets you control how far the path will deviate from the commanded path. I think they all have different ways of dealing with it, depending on what the developer thinks is best.
It's not just path deviation, though. It also has to do with blending short straight segments, like you see in 3D carving, or when cutting 2D shapes that were splines at one point.
I don't know if any low cost controls have S-Curve acceleration, expect for the Tiny G. https://github.com/synthetos/TinyG/wiki/Jerk-Controlled-Motion-Explained
I used to use the Tempest version of Mach3 that had it, and it can make a world of difference on a big router. All the big machines used in the woodworking industry have it. You need very smooth motion at 2000+ ipm, if you don't want the machine to tear itself apart.
-
Going a bit off topic but when Art wrote the Tempest planner and incorporated it into Mach Quantum I think he expected it would migrate into Mach4. Unfortunately it never happened but it was a good product and Art then went on to use Tempest in his current laser control software Auggie.
When I use machine control software incorporating the ‘S’ curve acceleration / deceleration it makes me wonder just how the ‘bang-bang’ trapezoid system has been accepted for so long.
Tweakie.