Machsupport Forum

Mach Discussion => General Mach Discussion => Topic started by: DennisF on October 11, 2009, 12:29:40 PM

Title: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 11, 2009, 12:29:40 PM
Hi Brian and Art
I have heard a lot about a mach 4 version with many of the bug's in Mach 3 fixed late last year around December a developer said he got a copy of it for beta testing recently he said there had been nothing further on it any info available is this as far as mach is going.

Rg's
Dennis
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 11, 2009, 02:29:56 PM
Hi Brian and Art
I have heard a lot about a mach 4 version with many of the bug's in Mach 3 fixed late last year around December a developer said he got a copy of it for beta testing recently he said there had been nothing further on it any info available is this as far as mach is going.

Rg's
Dennis

Brian has been working very hard on v4 for many months.  It will be a VERY different animal from v3, with many, many VERY significant changes (all very much for the better!).

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 11, 2009, 03:58:15 PM
Hi Ray
Thanks for the reply been about 8-9 months not heard anything further about it i work with mach on a daily basis mill and lathe and the work around's are a pain especially the offsetting bug along with some others hopefully Brian will get it going soon.

Dennis
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: PSG on October 12, 2009, 09:37:34 PM

I am looking forward to the release of Mach4. I am sure that it will have a huge variety of enhancements and improvements. The only thing that I can say that I will not like (I may be wrong) is the new licensing method where we must log in for "activation". I am bringing this up for a very specific reason. Many years ago I spent over $10k on a software package that did the same thing for activation. I voiced my concern about 24/7 activation and was assured that there would never be a problem. Due to bad electrical service and lightning we would periodically lose a drive and have to reload. Surge protectors were useless solutions. All was fine until there was a network outage, a server problem, and then the company went belly up. Needless to say, we could never get up and running like we were promised and ultimately we lost our investment.

If this is the direction that Mach goes, I will not follow. I understand the issue of piracy. If losses are in the 50% range, double the price or turn to a hardware dongle.

Just my half of a penny.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Velly on October 13, 2009, 07:36:29 AM
I am looking also for a great Mach4 with real (working) TCP Modbus support!
Can't get TCP Modbus to work with the PLC (tests are OK, brains execution fail)
4 years ago we spent over $3k on CamSoft licences and "support" - the machine is still not running properly, because of Galil DMC ETH controller communication problems.
I do hope to invest in a solid CNC software this fall, let it be Mach4 ;-)
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 13, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
PSG and Velly
 I to have several cadcam softwares on the shelf useless as the companies have gone under or been bought by another company and no longer support the product they would happly sell me the new product for many $ i pay the money i should get what i was promised a working bug free product that cuts what i want to cut not all this work around and filter it through this software and that one and in the end it still dose not cut what i need or want I hoped that Mach would be the answer i still hope so but like you guy's my confidence is shaken.

Dennis
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: PSG on October 13, 2009, 02:49:38 PM
Dennis,

I have the utmost confidence in Mach and their software. What I have little confidence in is the ever so increasing protection schemes, all in the name of piracy protection. I have no issue with piracy protection but unless I can get a personal phone number for a human being to answer at 3 am or on New Year's eve, I will not subscribe or succumb to "online activation", rolling codes, etc. I would rather pay double the current cost or use a dongle than fangled (no pun intended :) ) activation schemes. Mach, Art, Brian, and of course all of their non-published associates, have proven the worth and value of the software so making up for any losses should not be impossible.

Of course, this is IF that is the path that is being taken. I tried looking for where I read that info and could not find it, so please, unless there is written confirmation from Brian to not put much stock into my comments other than the reasons why I would like to see that happen.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 13, 2009, 06:50:55 PM
PSG
 I have used a dongle on a Cadcam software same problem company goes under and the dongle no longer works or is supported in addition one company i used, you had to have a piece of software to run it with so a hard drive failure would take you down.No i think you should get your lic# pay the price if you agree to it and if your hard drive goes down you reinstall the software and off you go. But along with this you should get what you weer promised especially if you did not haggle with their asking price at the time.

Dennis

Hi, Dennis, Hears the screen set for mill, Chip.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 13, 2009, 09:47:50 PM
Hello all.. Just looking over this thread quickly and I can tell you that the license for the Rev 4 code will not be much different.. the only thing that will be added is the need to go to the web to get a registration number for the computer. This can be done with a remote computer and a pad of paper.. so if you have internet on your phone you can register your machine :) . This is only to protect a license from getting out and people trying to copy it over and over.. we are going to allow many copies of the same license for the home users. As you all know we are here for you the users not for the people that like to use stolen license files and ask us for support.. So in the end this will give registered users MORE support not less ;)

Also the new Rev 4 code (I had to start over because multi threaded Open GL burned me). has just got the new Gcode interpreter added in with the new cutter comp and better mm/ inch support! So I am making headway! This was all put into a multi threaded version of mach3 that has the GUI on the top level and the motion control on the lower level. This has allowed the user to "play" with the toolpath as the part is cutting with no ill effect to the pulse outputs.  I have some testing that I need to do but I am thinking as soon as I am done with my testing that I will put this rev out for you to all test :) I would love to know what you all think about the new Gcodes that are like the ones in Smid's book..


Well that is all I have for an update at this time

Thanks
Brian
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: PSG on October 13, 2009, 11:50:40 PM
Brian,

For "me" Mach3 works great, but I do no programming as it all comes out of the CAM. I do know, and have known that Mach is much much more capable than what I usually come across. One of these days I will get a better grasp on macros and brains :) I know that many are looking for improvements that they deem necessary for what they do (and they will hate me for saying this :) ) but I am in no rush. I am more interested in stable and working and can use what I have now.

About the licensing. My only issue is that I do not want to be in a situation that I cannot get up and running. Thankfully (at least my machine) is a dedicated standalone and not connected to the internet or even used for anything other than the Mach controller. This lessens the possibility of problems like my workstation that gets easily screwed up with MS updates and often requires complete wiping and reinstalling. This happened to me in the past and though not as likely with Mach it is not something I ever want to endure again. The safest and probably best way is one machine and one hardware dongle. Till that day comes, I am not going to worry about it.

Now that you are talking about new G-codes I guess I have something to worry about :) Which book do I need for study material ???

Oh hell, while I am at it.....will Mach ever allow the use of tool numbers greater than 255 ? It has to do with my unorthodox numbering scheme :)


Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 14, 2009, 11:00:53 AM
Hi Brian
 Thanks for the information i hadn't seen any new release's heard about Mach 4 but that was all nothing in month's good to know what's going on from time to time I have 2 stand alone computers running my machine's one for a mill and one for a lathe i have had some success with cutting my parts while thinking i have it down then finding a cutting problem with another part that may be simpler in design but for an end user it's hard to know weather it's a code problem or cam interpreter problem thanks again for informing all of us whats going on i am looking forward to the new version.

Dennis   
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 14, 2009, 11:33:19 AM
Hey Chip
On that file i talked to you about i think the problem may have been pointed out to me i will let you know if it works.

Dennis
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: DennisF on October 14, 2009, 11:33:38 AM
oh and thanks for the screen set.

Dennis
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Spartan117 on October 14, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
Oh hell, while I am at it.....will Mach ever allow the use of tool numbers greater than 255 ? It has to do with my unorthodox numbering scheme :)

Well, THIS would be very useful... :)
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 14, 2009, 03:13:12 PM
Hello,
The licence schema is not going to limit you running your machine.. If you can't get access to an internet connection i guess that could be a problem .. but the amount of data that it will take you could do very easy over a dial-up connection ;) . I am trying to make this a painless as possible.

The G codes are going to be as they are seen in the CNC Programming Hand Book by Peter Smid. I am doing this so we are as "standard" as we can be..


Don't see the tool numbers going over 255.. that is just a MASIVE amount of tools..
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Spartan117 on October 14, 2009, 04:01:57 PM
But it would be a very easy way to number the tools.
For example, you could number them this way:
1xx -> 1mm-cutter in any variation. For example 104 is a 1mm cutter with 4mm flute-length
2xx -> 2mm-cutter in any variation. For example 209 is a 2mm cutter with 9mm flute length
and so on.
There would be many possibilities for creating your own code for your toolsets.


And 255 tools may be enough if you only differ between the dia. and maybe rouging and smoothing-mills

But i'm using a router, a Lagun-mill and soon another router-like mill, and i'd like to use one tool-library for all machines.

There are THAT much cutter-types! I don't know the english meanings of the different types, so i write them in german:
Diamantverzahnt, Spiralverzahnt, Einschneider, Zweischneider, Dreischneider, Vierschneider, Fischschwanz, flach geschliffen, Radiusfräser, Kugelfräser and many, many more.
And all in different diameters, lengths, flute-lengths and so on... So i don't think that 255tools are that much?
I don't want to rework the tooltable every few days?


I hope you understand my english to some degree :)
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 14, 2009, 04:28:08 PM
But it would be a very easy way to number the tools.
For example, you could number them this way:
1xx -> 1mm-cutter in any variation. For example 104 is a 1mm cutter with 4mm flute-length
2xx -> 2mm-cutter in any variation. For example 209 is a 2mm cutter with 9mm flute length
and so on.
There would be many possibilities for creating your own code for your toolsets.


And 255 tools may be enough if you only differ between the dia. and maybe rouging and smoothing-mills

But i'm using a router, a Lagun-mill and soon another router-like mill, and i'd like to use one tool-library for all machines.

There are THAT much cutter-types! I don't know the english meanings of the different types, so i write them in german:
Diamantverzahnt, Spiralverzahnt, Einschneider, Zweischneider, Dreischneider, Vierschneider, Fischschwanz, flach geschliffen, Radiusfräser, Kugelfräser and many, many more.
And all in different diameters, lengths, flute-lengths and so on... So i don't think that 255tools are that much?
I don't want to rework the tooltable every few days?


I hope you understand my english to some degree :)

I have hundreds of tools in my toolset, including one for every letter, number, and fractional drill, and multiple "logical" tools defined for each "physical" tool, so there's a separate logical tool defined for roughing, finishing, slotting, high-speed cutting, etc..  The CAM uses a very large library (hundreds of logical tools with numbers up to 1000 or more), but the POST re-numbers the tools on output, collapsing logical tools back down into physical tools, and doing it so any one job never has more than a handful of tools, always numbered sequentially starting at 1.  255 tools in Mach3 is more than plenty.

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Spartan117 on October 15, 2009, 10:22:52 AM
And what CAM are you using? And what is the price of it?
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 15, 2009, 11:23:48 AM
And what CAM are you using? And what is the price of it?

I'm using SheetCAM TNG, with a VERY heavily customized POST, and a whole lotta Perl code to do most of the tool manipulation.

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Spartan117 on October 15, 2009, 11:56:34 AM
And you will not publish this modifications, right?
So other users would benefit of more tools in Mach ;)

It is a good idea, for sure, but how do you ensure that Tool#3 is the 5mm-cutter THIS time?
If i understand you right, Tool#3 can be ANY tool every new job? You will have to look into the code-window to ensure, right?
What if the code-window is too small to see the whole name of the tool?
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 15, 2009, 12:30:36 PM
And you will not publish this modifications, right?
So other users would benefit of more tools in Mach ;)

It is a good idea, for sure, but how do you ensure that Tool#3 is the 5mm-cutter THIS time?
If i understand you right, Tool#3 can be ANY tool every new job? You will have to look into the code-window to ensure, right?
What if the code-window is too small to see the whole name of the tool?

I would be happy to publish it, but I'm not terribly interested in explaining how it all works, as it is rather complex.  The code is all reasonably well written, but not really documented.  All of my tool descriptors are auto-generated by a Perl program, from information in an Excel spreadsheet.  This allows me to define feed/plunge rates, RPM, DOC, etc, algorithmically, rather than having to define them individually for every one of the hundreds of tools.  The Perl program generates a SheetCAM tool descriptor file.  I then have a custom SheetCAM POST that performs a number of functions, including the logical-to-physical mapping of tools and outputs a G-code file.  Finally, there is another Perl program that modified the G-code file by determining what pulley/motorspeed/VFD frequencies to use, so as to minimize the number of pulley and motor speed changes for the program as a while, then inserting M0s into the code, prompting for manual setting of the correct pulley, motor speed range for each tool, and many other things.  It's all HIGHLY customized to my machine, and my work flow.
As I said, I'd be happy to post it, but I'm not interested in "supporting" it.

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: PSG on October 15, 2009, 02:08:02 PM
No way was I trying to create a nightmare for Brian about tools. I just figured that if it was "easy" (very loose) I would ask.

Ray, you are correct that 255 tools is more than enough tools. Unfortunately for me, and my wacky scheme, 1-255 is not an easily remembered format. See, my machine is a router and I use bits of all various configurations vs. just endmills and their variants. My post is configured to call out the tool by name as well as number so I can look at the code and see what is being requested. My issue is that (someday) I will forget to ensure that each "different" tool has a different number and that Mach will skip over the tool change.

My scheme (which is easy for me), just so it can be understood is as follows:

180 = .125" drill
182 = .125" endmill 2 FL
140 = .250" drill
142 = .250 endmill 2 FL
144 = .250 endmill 4FL
etc. etc.

Here is where I shoot myself in the foot:

901 = 90 degree V bit 1-inch
601 = 60 degree V bit 1 inch

and it can get worse for coves and ogees :)

Still not a big deal. Maybe one day, although I truly hate having to use one for reference, I will just create a spreadsheet and number everything 1-255 (I guess that is how most do it). The bottom line is Mach DOES (let me say again for all to hear DOES - DOES - DOES - DOES) work very well and I am not complaining in any shape or form.

Brian - Painless is good. Like I said, I am not worried about it (new activation scheme) until the day comes. I still like the idea of a dongle though :)
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 15, 2009, 03:34:55 PM
No way was I trying to create a nightmare for Brian about tools. I just figured that if it was "easy" (very loose) I would ask.

Ray, you are correct that 255 tools is more than enough tools. Unfortunately for me, and my wacky scheme, 1-255 is not an easily remembered format. See, my machine is a router and I use bits of all various configurations vs. just endmills and their variants. My post is configured to call out the tool by name as well as number so I can look at the code and see what is being requested. My issue is that (someday) I will forget to ensure that each "different" tool has a different number and that Mach will skip over the tool change.

My scheme (which is easy for me), just so it can be understood is as follows:

180 = .125" drill
182 = .125" endmill 2 FL
140 = .250" drill
142 = .250 endmill 2 FL
144 = .250 endmill 4FL
etc. etc.

Here is where I shoot myself in the foot:

901 = 90 degree V bit 1-inch
601 = 60 degree V bit 1 inch

and it can get worse for coves and ogees :)

Still not a big deal. Maybe one day, although I truly hate having to use one for reference, I will just create a spreadsheet and number everything 1-255 (I guess that is how most do it). The bottom line is Mach DOES (let me say again for all to hear DOES - DOES - DOES - DOES) work very well and I am not complaining in any shape or form.

Brian - Painless is good. Like I said, I am not worried about it (new activation scheme) until the day comes. I still like the idea of a dongle though :)

But are you using an auto toolchanger?  If not, just insert a comment into the code prior to each toolchange giving you the tool description, rather than the number.  That's what I do.  Numeric schemes always blow up at some point, because you have different tools that, per the scheme, would end up with the same number - straight-flute vs spiral flute, e.g..

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Spartan117 on October 15, 2009, 04:07:47 PM
Numeric schemes always blow up at some point, because you have different tools that, per the scheme, would end up with the same number - straight-flute vs spiral flute, e.g..

Not if the numbers can go "far" enough :D SCNR
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: bowber on October 16, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
Like Ray I'm not interested in the tool number, I just make sure it's different for each tool used, be it Meshcam, sheetcam or Vcarve Pro.
It's the tool description I look at.
But, A big But, I'm only a hobby user and so most of my jobs don't get repeated in X months time.

I hate Dongles, never ever put Mach on a dongle please.
They break, get lost, get in the way in short I hate them and I currently have 2, Wasatch RIP and Signlabs sign software and they are a pain.

Not too happy about having to activate via a web site but I can understand it, maybe some code to unlock the program that can be published in the event of Artsoft no longer being available for activation?

Steve
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Overloaded on October 16, 2009, 11:47:34 AM

Hello,
 I don't understand exactly what will be required here.
Following is a quote from Brian from this topic : http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,11068.0.html

Is this like a "one time activation" thing ? Or every time you start the machine ?   ? ??

Could someone please explain in detail  how this will be intended to work?

Doesn't look like a big deal to me buy maybe I'm not seeing it as it is.

Thanks,
RC



 
Quote
4.) License for Mach3 is about to be locked per machine ID.. The old
license format has served us well over the past 8 years but it is time
to change with the times   . This will be web based (you don't need to
have the controller computer connected to the web) . It is a simple code
that you need to type in... The license file that you have now will get
you into the data base and allow you to register your machines on the
web page to get your code. I hate to do this to you but we are getting
to many people copying license files and using us for support    . In
the end that is what pays to make it so we can keep working on the
software to make it better and more robust! one last note on the license
junk.. the terms will be the same.. If you are a hobby user (Not cutting
for money) you can run from the one license that you have BUT you will
need to register the machine on the web using the same license name..
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 16, 2009, 01:21:38 PM

Hello,
 I don't understand exactly what will be required here.
Following is a quote from Brian from this topic : http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,11068.0.html

Is this like a "one time activation" thing ? Or every time you start the machine ?   ? ??

Could someone please explain in detail  how this will be intended to work?

Doesn't look like a big deal to me buy maybe I'm not seeing it as it is.

Thanks,
RC



 
Quote
4.) License for Mach3 is about to be locked per machine ID.. The old
license format has served us well over the past 8 years but it is time
to change with the times   . This will be web based (you don't need to
have the controller computer connected to the web) . It is a simple code
that you need to type in... The license file that you have now will get
you into the data base and allow you to register your machines on the
web page to get your code. I hate to do this to you but we are getting
to many people copying license files and using us for support    . In
the end that is what pays to make it so we can keep working on the
software to make it better and more robust! one last note on the license
junk.. the terms will be the same.. If you are a hobby user (Not cutting
for money) you can run from the one license that you have BUT you will
need to register the machine on the web using the same license name..

Very much like Windows activation - When you do a new install, you'll have to get on the 'net and contact ArtSoft to get an "activation" key.  Once you have it, you're good to go, until you either move the software to a new machine, or make substantial changes to the hardware of the existing machine.  In either case, you go back to ArtSoft and get another activation key.  As I said, very much the way Windows activation works.  It should be quick and painless, and for 99.9% of people a one-time thing.

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Overloaded on October 16, 2009, 02:36:22 PM
Thanks for that info Ray !
I understand moving to another machine, but what sort of "substantial changes to the hardware of the existing machine" would necessitate a reactivation ? Like changing the XML ? Or adding a 4th axis ?
RC
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 16, 2009, 02:42:55 PM
Thanks for that info Ray !
I understand moving to another machine, but what sort of "substantial changes to the hardware of the existing machine" would necessitate a reactivation ? Like changing the XML ? Or adding a 4th axis ?
RC


Substantial changes to the PC hardware, not the CNC machine.   Just like Windows.

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Overloaded on October 16, 2009, 03:14:32 PM
Gotcha Ray...thanks.
Still seems like it's no biggie.
As long as there is a "hot line" and assured 24-7 reactivation for the ones using it for their livelyhood.
RC
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 16, 2009, 06:53:07 PM
It will be better then 24-7 .. It will be a webpage that YOU go to  :) So you will have it as soon as you go to the webpage... I am doing my best to make it simple for you all to use..

Thanks
Brian
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: doug6949 on October 17, 2009, 01:58:14 PM
I think Brian is on the right track wrt the software protection scheme.  Most dongles are eventually defeated.  Adding dongle protection just makes you a target for those who see it as a challenge.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically exempts dongles, making it perfectly legal to develop and distribute dongle emulators.  The problem is that illegal copies of legitimately enabled emulators get circulated. 

Online activation isn't bulletproof but it works somewhat better than dongle protection, particularly with an application like Mach.  The target for cracking is only one application as opposed to multiple applications using the same dongle.  Insignificant targets aren't worth cracking.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: PSG on October 19, 2009, 11:44:22 AM
Brian - As I said, I am not going to worry about it (activation scheme) until the time comes, so please do not think that I am harping on you as I further explain my position to the others.

First of all, ALL protection can be defeated/cracked. Microsoft uses the same scheme and they are often cracked. It is true that dongles can be emulated but the cost to emulate a dongle is about $200. Even what has been somewhat proposed for Mach is flawed.

My issues with "rolling" serials and online activation scheme come from past experience. In one case I was actually burned for tens of thousands of dollars because of this very same protection. Fortunately, machines that run run Mach controllers do not suffer the usual problems and failures that workstations can. Unfortunately, some failures can and do occur. If a component or pc needs to be replaced then new codes are going to be required or someone is dead in the water. I have personally experienced Microsoft saying "please call us back". Now if Bill Gates and his resources cannot prevent that from happening, would it be fair to expect Brian to be able to? I don't think so. In my opinion, a dongle can offer better protection. Although dongles like anything else can also fail, that rate is far lower than any other protection scheme.

There are other things that Brian can do to increase profitability for the amount of time involved in writing and supporting Mach. For starters, regardless of what anybody says, they could easily charge $100 to $150 more per license and I think that people would pay it. There is nothing else even comparable in that range (unless you want EMC and it is still not the same or everybody would using it anyway). Brian could also stop the "free upgrades". Offering updates within a 12 month period is one thing but free upgrades for life is something that other successful software companies do not do. How can anybody expect forward development without a company charging for upgrades. The list goes on and there is no reason why Brain should be expected to work on Mach for free.

Should we have to endure the new web-based and coded serial I would at least hope that an activation period with an ample "timeout"also be implemented. This would at least remove some of my anxiety. I would also like to know that there is a "backdoor plan" should future development cease. In other words, heaven forbid that something catastrophic happens and Brain no longer wishes/wants/can sustain Artsoft then (revealed only at that time) there will be a way for all of us to continue to use Mach.

All of this is moot until (if) that day actually comes!

Brian - Still looking forward to the new release!

Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 19, 2009, 01:32:34 PM
Hello,
I will keep talking to you about this, No problem . The plan is to give you like 3-5 machines that you can setup day one and every year give you one back so you can have a computer failure every year with no trouble . Also if you need to have more licenses all you need to do is tell us via Email explaining why you need more. Note that a license is only good for more then one machine IF you are doing it as a hobby (You are not selling the parts that you are making). As soon as you start selling the parts that you are making we feel that it is only fare for you to pay for the software that is making it work  to make money :).

So as you can see it is very loose and nithing like microsoft.. We will give away license files freely to the hobby users. The reason for needing to go to a webpage is so we can see if there is an abuse of the license. Also if you get a machine and you didn't register you know that you have stolen software.. So it is for us and you..

Thanks
Brian
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: bowber on October 19, 2009, 04:49:43 PM
What about people like me who bought from a reseller in the UK, as far as I can see I have a general licence issued by the reseller.

Steve
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Hood on October 19, 2009, 05:05:25 PM
What about people like me who bought from a reseller in the UK, as far as I can see I have a general licence issued by the reseller.

Steve

What is the licenced name?

Hood
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 19, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
You should have a serialized license.. That is how some of the OEM's get there license.. If your license is just ABC Automation and there are no numbers.. that could be bad.. NO ONE has a license that they can just give out.. (this is what we are trying to stop)

Thanks
Brian
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: doug6949 on October 19, 2009, 05:52:04 PM
When the subject of piracy was being discussed several years ago I asked Art why he hadn't considered putting some of the code in hardware.  Art said he was looking into it but apparently the idea was discarded.

Centroid, Power Automation, and other commercial Windows-based CNC systems use this method successfully.  The majority of Mach systems already employ some type of interface board.  It wouldn't be that costly to add memory and some type of processor.  Done correctly, this type of code protection is very difficult to crack.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: docltf on October 19, 2009, 08:06:20 PM
Brian

is mach4.0 going to be a lockdown release. el perfectomundo ,no bugfix 4.01 4.02 etc..etc.. with the only updating done with plugins.

thanks bill

Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 19, 2009, 09:46:21 PM
Mach3 Rev4.0.1 is going to be a devlopment version.. when it is ready fo rthe light of day ..
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: bowber on October 20, 2009, 04:41:01 AM
I'll have to look at it, but it was bought from Routout CNC (along with some drivers) about 2 years ago for £85, I seem to remember it was about the same as buying direct with exchange rates.
I'll look at it and check.

Steve
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: bowber on October 20, 2009, 04:56:10 AM
Just checked and my licence is letters and numbers so it must be a serialised one, there is a message at the bottom of the about box that says about getting in touch with artsoft for a peronalised licence if I want one.

I was starting to panic for a moment there :o

Steve
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: Brian Barker on October 20, 2009, 07:53:12 AM
You are all set :) They do a good job!
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: dsnellen on October 23, 2009, 10:09:25 PM
You should have a serialized license.. That is how some of the OEM's get there license.. If your license is just ABC Automation and there are no numbers.. that could be bad.. NO ONE has a license that they can just give out.. (this is what we are trying to stop)

Thanks
Brian

Now you have me worried. I purchased my mill from Legacy complete with computer and software. The "Licensed to" field has a person's name who was probably the person at Legacy who build the system. Is this a valid license?
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: HimyKabibble on October 23, 2009, 10:10:24 PM
You should have a serialized license.. That is how some of the OEM's get there license.. If your license is just ABC Automation and there are no numbers.. that could be bad.. NO ONE has a license that they can just give out.. (this is what we are trying to stop)

Thanks
Brian

Now you have me worried. I purchased my mill from Legacy complete with computer and software. The "Licensed to" field has a person's name who was probably the person at Legacy who build the system. Is this a valid license?

Probably not....  You need to check with ArtSoft.

Regards,
Ray L.
Title: Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
Post by: dsnellen on October 23, 2009, 10:28:11 PM
That's what I am thinking. Just fired off an email to license@machsupport.com asking for clarification.