Machsupport Forum
Mach Discussion => Mach4 General Discussion => Topic started by: Plasron on March 24, 2019, 05:31:56 PM
-
How long does it take to receive the Mach4 Parallel Port Legacy Plugin after ordering it.
Thanks
Ron
-
Hello Ron,
You will need to download the plugin itself here: https://www.machsupport.com/downloads-updates/main-programs/
After you purchase the license, you will receive an email with a link to download the license file. Once downloaded, use the 'Load License File' button in the Help>About menu in Mach4 to install.
Best wishes,
Bryanna
-
Thanks Bryanna
I’m a big dummy, we were waiting for a PCI card. ;D
-
Just remember that you will need Windows XP or Windows 7 32bits to be able to use Mach4 with MACH4 Parallel Port Legacy Plugin
Window 8.x, Windows 10 32bits will NOT work.
All 64bits version of windows will also not work.
LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP.
-
Why on earth would you want to run Mach4 off a parallel port? You could use that $25 toward a purchase of a Warp9 or other modern controller?
-
Hi,
the Darwin Mach4 parallel port is a cheap way to dip your toes in the Mach4 setup. It is not fully developed,
nor will it ever be, stuff like backlash comp, lathe threading and THC are not supported. If those limitations
do not concern you then its a good choice.
Craig
-
Why on earth would you want to run Mach4 off a parallel port? You could use that $25 toward a purchase of a Warp9 or other modern controller?
As long as the so called modern Controller does NOT support less functions and is making machine less reliable.
THC?
Sensitivity to EMI?
Buffer underuns?
Pendants not supported?
Slave axis?
Just be honest...
-
Hi,
all of the currently available external motion controllers support more realtime functions than Darwin, the possible
exception is the UC**** series, they have only basic realtime functionality like Darwin.
THC?
The Hicon Integra has THC currently and the ESS realtime THC is being Beta tested now. Mach4 has a script based THC feature
as development release now. Darwin does not have it and Art has indicated that its not ever likely to have either.
Sensitivity to EMI?
Buffer underuns?
Sensitivity to EMI....on a controller board.....doesn't happen.
Buffer underruns is more like a parallel port gremlin but not unheard of with USB connected controllers.
Pendants not supported
That is not either a Mach issue OR a controller issue but rather the manufacturers of pendants not writing a plugin
for their device. To date VistaCNC have, and there are (Mach) community plugins for the Xbox and one XHC pendant,
and a NFS written plugin for the Shuttle Pro.
Slave axis?
Mach accommodates six coordinated axes each with a master and up to three slaves per axis and six Out-of-Band axes,
again with a master and up to three slaves per axis with a maximum of 32 motors. Darwin can have up to four ports
and therefore could handle 24 motors (24 pairs of step/dir pins), the ESS somewhat fewer at 18 motors. I can't really
imagine a hobbyists machine needing anything like that number of motors, so the actual upper limit of motor
numbers is of academic interest only.
Craig
-
My Vista Pendent works fine in Mach4 with the new drivers (3/2019). Warp9 ESS, RFI and EMI if you use shielded cabling for your limits, and your motors and the spindle also not a problem. If your trying to run a plasma cutter without those and a shielded ground enclosure your going to have issues. Ethernet is much Less prone to interference than the old parallel port cabling. Does PlasmaCAM still use parallel? The one I did anyway and it was never a problem but I used a Hypertherm torch.
Oh and I am running a Slaved Axis on my CNC router, whats the issue?
-
PlasmaCam still use parallel port. But their software DesignEdge supports the latest WINDOWS 10 64 bits using the parallel port with no problem.
-
My PlasmaCam was great when it was working. The Controller failed and they paid for the repairs but I had to pay the shipping. I decided to sell it before I had troubles again. and lo and behold the people I sold it to had issues. The machine was nice and the software was great but they had a bunch of A$$ holes in customer service. No wonder the market is filled with plasma table machines today from China.
-
I guess you could say my brother and I decided to learn Rocket Science over the Internet.
My brother came across a CNC machine with optical controllers, that didn’t work, so he got steeper motors and a BOB ( now to the parallel port it was my doing, had always heard parallel ports were faster) got them mounted to CNC table we tried Mach3 and got the motors to work and everything worked great, now we heard Mach3 was old news and Mach4 was the way to go, so he licensed Mach4.
He does have a XP computer running 32 bits.
If we ever figure just where we are now and get the rest worked out in Mach4, then the next headache is going to be mounting the plasma torch, Yes the old CNC machine has a plasma machine.
Where is the plasma set located in Mach4, I’m hearing there is no plasma set in Mach4.
Thanks for all the help you have provided for us Internet Rocket Scientists.
-
Hi,
THC is an important part of getting a plasma table to operate well.
THC is a realtime function, that is the machine has to respond to THC_UP or THC_DOWN signals within a few ten
of microseconds. That has traditionally meant that it needs to be handled with hardware, ie your controller.
In Mach3 the parallel port driver supported THC, but the Darwin parallel port does not have it.
Until recently the Hicon Integra ($600 plus an activation fee)board was the only Mach4 controller to have realtime THC.
The Ethernet SmoothStepper is Beta testing its realtime THC function now. We can expect the ESS to have realtime
THC support within days, maybe weeks.
NFS has written a script based THC solution. Note that because of the communication delays that its not particularly
realistic to call this a genuine closed loop THC solution. None the less if the required Z axis movement is not to fast or
radical it should work OK, certainly NFS believe so. It has not been officially released yet but is available as a development
download now and can be found on the NFS ftp site.
Your choices are:
1) Forgo THC altogether
2) Buy a Hicon Integra OR an Ethernet SmoothStepper and use the realtime THC function of that controller.
3) Download and install the latest development build of Mach4 and use the script based THC function provided (free).
Craig
-
Hi,
the current Mach4Hpbby build is 4132 and can be found at:
ftp://ftp.machsupport.com/Mach4/DevlopmentVersions/ (ftp://ftp.machsupport.com/Mach4/DevlopmentVersions/)
Craig
-
Why on earth would you want to run Mach4 off a parallel port? You could use that $25 toward a purchase of a Warp9 or other modern controller?
In my case I have a system that runs perfectly on the parallel port. I would like to upgrade to Mach4 but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars to rebuild my control panel for a software upgrade. The lack of parallel port support is the only reason i'm not running Mach4 right now.
-
Why on earth would you want to run Mach4 off a parallel port? You could use that $25 toward a purchase of a Warp9 or other modern controller?
In my case I have a system that runs perfectly on the parallel port. I would like to upgrade to Mach4 but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars to rebuild my control panel for a software upgrade. The lack of parallel port support is the only reason i'm not running Mach4 right now.
Well said Steve - I totally agree.
-
Mach4 printer port (darwin) has some limitations when compared with Mach3 with parallel port
e.g
no Plasma THC
no Backlash compensation
no threading
If those are no needed as yet, it is OK to use Darwin Mach4 printer port (Darwin) first.
THEN
Save up for
Warp9 ESS which appears to be the most promising motion controller so far.
(Maybe it's better to avoid the USS and ALL other USB based motion controllers.)
ESS should be able to connect to your 1 (or 2 or 3) parallel port Break Out Boards (BOB) so migration from parallel port (Darwin) to ESS should not be too hard assuming you will continue to use Mach4 on Win 7 (32bits).
I think US$25 for Darwin and $180 for ESS is not too expensive.
-
Thanks to all , for your knowledge and will to help people like me, it is greatly appreciated
Ron
-
Thanks to all , for your knowledge and will to help people like me, it is greatly appreciated
Ron
If its working on Mach3 and you don't need any functions that 4 has, keep what you got.
-
Hi stevehuck,
In my case I have a system that runs perfectly on the parallel port. I would like to upgrade to Mach4 but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars to rebuild my control panel for a software upgrade.
Yes I understand your point of view.......but you have stated the problem already.
'I have a system that runs perfectly on the parallel port', that is correct BUT that is all it will ever do, new features
like Surface Map, Zero Brane Studio editor/debugger, Mach Touch Module and PLC scripts (including PMC ladder logic)
will not be available to you.
There was quite a period of time when Mach4 had, at best, most of the features that Mach3 had, and for the last year or
so its had ALL the functionality of Mach3. Just recently Mach4 has added functionality that EXCEEDS Mach3, and
the pace is accelerating.
So the quandary for you is IF you want that extra functionality and the flexibility that Mach4's structure, API
and Lua bring, then it will cost several hundred dollars to get it. The essential point is that you are buying into
a new product with enhanced capabilities.
Your description suggests that you are entirely happy with your machine the way it is, you neither need
or want extra functionality, so stick with it.
As to why Art has chosen not to develop Darwin with stuff like THC and lathe threading, I don't know.
Maybe it runs contrary to the business model envisaged by NFS?
What is true is that there are five or six manufacturers of Mach4 ready external controllers ranging from
$120 for a single port IO, $150 to $250 for two and up to five ports IO and $600 plus extras for an industrial
grade controller. I don't think that is unreasonable for a controller that will out perform any Mach3 installation.
Craig
-
In 2019 Windows 10 overtakes Windows 7's market share for the first time.
BUT Mach4 is unlikely to overtake Mach3 market share in 10 years since in 2019 Mach4 still has probably only 10-15% the number of users of MACH3.
NFS needs to do something to win over more MACH3 users. Discounted upgrade path perhaps.
Is MACH4 going to be simply as successful as only Windows Vista or windows 8.X while people wait for Mach5?
-
Hi reuelt,
BUT Mach4 is unlikely to overtake Mach3 market share in 10 years since in 2019 Mach4 still has probably only 10-15% the number of users of MACH3.
You raise some interesting questions......
There is without a doubt a large and loyal Mach3 user base. But where did you get this information:
Mach4 still has probably only 10-15% the number of users of MACH3.
I am not going to say that you are incorrect but I have being trying to estimate that proportion for some time. I have
no evidence one way or another. I don't think it is helpful to bring an unsubstantiated piece of data to this conversation.
One source of information that I have been trying to tap is the member traffic on the forum. At any given time there
are a large number of guests on the forum and the overwhelming majority of them are reading from the Mach3 board,
or at least non-Mach4 boards. However a guest cannot post a reply or start a topic.
I have been trying to estimate the number of posts in the Mach3 board vs the Mach4. Regrettably the forum stats don't
yield those numbers directly.
What the forum does yield up is the number of topics.
In the Mach3 board the last post in the 1000th most recent topic occurred in 23/10/2017
In the Mach4 board the last post in the 1000th most recent topic occurred in 13/2/2017
Current stats for the Mach3 board is 150,123 posts in 18,397 topics for an average of 8.16 posts per topic.
Current stats for the Mach4 board is 17,246 posts in 1,762 topic for an average of 9.78 posts per topic.
Thus in the Mach3 board since 23/10/2017 I would expect 8,160 posts or 480 posts per month.
In the Mach4 board since 13/2/2017 I would expect 9,780 posts or 399 posts per month.
This is an interesting result......it suggests that while it is assumed that Mach3 is the vast majority of users that
Mach4 users, the small minority, have achieved 83% of the forum traffic. It suggests to me that there is much more
interest and activity among Mach4 users than many would guess. In absence of NFS stating the sales or rate
thereof its the best (documented) indicator I have.
NFS needs to do something to win over more MACH3 users. Discounted upgrade path perhaps.
Why bother? Many people are happy with Mach3 and NFS no doubt derive sales income therefrom. Mach4 is approximately
the same value and NFS derive a proportionate share of income from Mach4 sales. It would be silly to discount your shiny new
product.....I mean do you go to a car yard and see this years model discounted.....no, you see the old models discounted.
No doubt if you have followed my posts you will be aware that I am of the opinion that NFS need to make OEM sales, and
I suspect they are. The sales are of much higher value and therefore hugely significant to the business. This need to produce
flexible and fully functioning software that can be used by OEMs in their own machines dominates NFS strategies and
development priorities and we as Hobby users get to benefit.
Is MACH4 going to be simply as successful as only Windows Vista or windows 8.X while people wait for Mach5?
My subjective opinion is that Mach4 is ALREADY successful. In my previous post to stevehuck Mach4 has overtaken Mach3
in terms of functionality and has been light years ahead in terms of programming flexibility for years. If you what to try it
go ahead. If you don't just carry on with Mach3.....but don't whinge when you find Mach4 out performing Mach3.
Craig
-
Hi,
I stated:
Mach4 users, the small minority, have achieved 83% of the forum traffic
Which clearly is rubbish, what I meant to say is that Mach4 traffic is 83% as much as Mach3 traffic.
Apologies....funny how you can read something many times before posting and yet a glaring inconsistency
still gets through!!!
Craig
-
(Survey by Bob Warfield)
Market share 2017 (CNC Control Low End Market)
MACH3 - 47.5%
LinuxCNC – 18.9%
MACH4 – 4.57%
GRBL/Carbide Motion – 3.%
UCCNC – 3.0%
Flashcut – 1.52%
Trend from 2016
MACH3 gained in market share from 2016
MACH4 dropped slightly in Market share from 2016.
All others lost market share.
He can only publish 2018 results in 2019.
-
Craig,
I think it is possible to guestimate from NEW USERS introducing themselves.
How many of them say they have got Mach4 vs those who say they have Mach3?
Also Mach3 users may have more than 1 machine.
Number of Products listed made for MACH3 on ebay far exceed those listed as compatible with Mach4.
-
Hi,
Also Mach3 users may have more than 1 machine.
What.....and Mach4 users are not going to have more than one machine?? ???
Number of Products listed made for MACH3 on ebay far exceed those listed as compatible with Mach4
True, but what does that signify?
Have you questioned the notion that the most respected manufacturers of Mach3 controllers are EXACTLY the same
manufacturers of Mach4 products. That suggests to me that they are the businesses whom are prepared to invest
the effort and resources to make Mach4 products. They are of the opinion that Mach4 is here and here to stay and
they have put their money where their mouth is.
I don't trust Chinese products for use with Mach4 and I am not really happy about their quality and usefulness with
Mach3 either. I fail to see that the number of rubbishy components and assemblies on sale is an true indication of the
quality or lack thereof of either Mach3 or Mach4. That would be like saying that because 90% of the clothes to be bought
in Sydney, being made in China, must mean that Armani suits must be crap.
I think it is possible to guestimate from NEW USERS introducing themselves.
How many of them say they have got Mach4 vs those who say they have Mach3?
That is at least a documented indication as to what those newcomers are doing. Question: Do those newcomers
actually represent the collective uptake of Mach4? I'm dubious.....many of them don't go on to buy Mach3 either?
I'm interested in the results of the survey you posted. Who is Bob Warfield? Where and how did he collect the data?
Where did he publish?
If the data is genuinely representative it supports your contention that Mach3 is ten times more used than Mach4.
You may recall that I did not call your contention wrong, in fact left to guess I would have come to a similar conclusion.
What that does not account for is the large amount of traffic that Mach4 users are generating given their apparently
much smaller numbers. My contention (opinion) is that those users are actively developing their machines and increasing
their understanding. Their seeming over representation in the traffic statistics is due to their enthusiasm and that enthusiasm
speaks well for the quality of Mach4.
In any event this is a purely academic conversation. Mach4 has just recently surpassed Mach in terms of functionality
and has always been more flexible. When those qualities are sought after then Mach4 will be taken up. At the current
time it would appear that most Mach3 users are happy enough with their software solution....that's good isn't it?
It bemuses me that Mach3 users should try to run down or criticize Mach4 users for their choice, especially given you've
never used it or vehemently oppose the notion of an external controller.
Craig
-
Mach4 still has probably only 10-15% the number of users of MACH3.
I would argue that it's much lower than that. With all the chinese machines for sale that come with Mach3, there are probably more new Mach3 users every day than Mach4 users. Granted, many of these are pirated copies.
I think it is possible to guestimate from NEW USERS introducing themselves.
The number of users that use the forum is probably as low as 5%-10% of the total user base. And the number that introduce themselves is probably 5%-10% of those.
-
Hi Gerry,
I agree on both counts.
Trying to use the forum to estimate a proportion of users is probably hopeless.
Ultimately Mach4, Mach3, UCCNC and LinuxCNC will attract (or lose) market share on the basis of functionality and value.
All four are strong contenders.
Hobby CNCer's are spoiled for choice.
Craig
-
Ok my penny worth of input
I have used both mach3 and mach4 both are licensed with ArtSoft
The mach3 had a usb controller it worked till it failed guess where it came from ,no prizes for the correct answere
So i got a mach4 lic and a ESS , the mill runs much smoother with this set up and with the addition of lua very easy to customise to my needs
Now the both do the same job control the mil but for me the mach4 setup is better
Yes it’s a point that can be argued add infinite but to what end use what you are happy with but please do not shout down others for their choice it’s a free world and long may it stay that way
One OT comment a brush with the big C puts things into perspective well it did for me , I am good now the guy with the stanly knife got it all, rearranged the plumbing a bit
Just my take on thing no offence intended to any reader
Stuart
-
I don't think there's any debate that Mach4 is not better than Mach3. It clearly is, based on everything I've read.
-
Hi stevehuck,
Your description suggests that you are entirely happy with your machine the way it is, you neither need
or want extra functionality, so stick with it.
Craig
Yes I am. The reason for the upgrade would be for the lathe. Mach3 Lathe isn't all that great so I would like to upgrade to Mach4. I run both a lathe and mill from the same computer so I would need 2 motion cards and the software and the driver. After tax, title, and delivery i would have to spend north of 650 bucks to upgrade a $1200 mill and $1400 lathe. I would also have to spend the time to rewire the panel. Not worth the trouble. If it were a simple software upgrade for $250 bucks I would be on board right now. It's just not worth the trouble and expense to have better screens for one of the 2 machines. I'm not knocking Mach4 but there isn't anything in it for me when both machines are running great other than a better looking gui. I just don't need any of the other funtions.
-
I don't think there's any debate that Mach4 is not better than Mach3. It clearly is, based on everything I've read.
The main reason most people continued with Windows XP even though Vista was definitely better than Windows XP - NOT a smooth Upgrade. Many programs won't work and drivers not ready.
It was Windows 7 (with the free XPMODE for those old programs to run) that won over most XP users.
Same thing with CPUs.
64bits Itanium & Sparc & MIPS & 68000 & even ARM were all better than Pentium 4.
It was AMD x64 design that allows users to continue i386 compatibility that won over the market.
MACH4 needs to provide MACH3 users a smoother migration path - that is all I hope.
Perhaps if ESS or other similar Ethernet motion controller performs & dominates, MACH4 will win over more MACH3 users.
People who use more than one parallel ports could migrate to MACH4 with ESS easily I think. (USB devices will disappoint)
What experience forum members can help is highlight/list a set of hardware that definitely work with (MACH4 + ESS) so that MACH3 users can plan their migration by avoiding incompatible products NOW.
List..
Pendant models, THC hardware models, BOB models, VFD models etc...THAT WORKS with MACH4+ESS.
-
Hi,
Yes I am. The reason for the upgrade would be for the lathe. Mach3 Lathe isn't all that great so I would like to upgrade to Mach4. I run both a lathe and mill from the same computer so I would need 2 motion cards and the software and the driver. After tax, title, and delivery i would have to spend north of 650 bucks to upgrade a $1200 mill and $1400 lathe. I would also have to spend the time to rewire the panel. Not worth the trouble. If it were a simple software upgrade for $250 bucks I would be on board right now. It's just not worth the trouble and expense to have better screens for one of the 2 machines. I'm not knocking Mach4 but there isn't anything in it for me when both machines are running great other than a better looking gui. I just don't need any of the other funtions.
I personally think that Steve's reply is a perfect example of why Mach4 is not being taken up by Mach3 users in greater
numbers. He has a working solution already and the cost, approx. $650 in his case, to get just one of his machines into
Mach4 is too steep. He also comments ' there isn't anything in it for me when both machines are running great other than
a better looking gui. I just don't need any of the other funtions'. Steve clearly regards Mach4 as a software upgrade with
a better GUI only and no other features that he requires.
I think his comments and opinions are spot on.
My opinion is that Mach4 is a new product, not an upgrade. The new product has really only recently offered new
functionality that the older product (mach3) does not, although the programming flexibility of the new product
well exceeds the older product. As such there has been little incentive for people to buy new, Steve for example.
When or if Steve determines that Mach4 offers functionality that Mach3 cant AND he WANTS those features THEN he will
buy new.
As everyone is aware I am a rabid Mach4 supporter and feel, mistakenly, that modest uptake of Mach4 by others
smacks as a negative against the software. Modest uptake among existing Mach users simply indicates that there
is nothing extra appealing about Mach4 to induce them to buy new.
Guess what? That's perfectly OK. Mach4 has recently added Surface Map, a script based THC solution and a teach
function intended for plasma ops. These features do not exist in Mach3. I am now of the opinion that Mach4 exceeds
the functionality of Mach3 and anticipate that more users will migrate to it as these and other developments are
released that make Mach4 genuinely more capable than Mach3.
Craig
-
Functionality of Mach4 vs Mach3 aside, Mach4 runs the machine a LOT better than Mach3. I had an ESS anyway, so the switch didn't cost anything for me. I was reluctant because I have a BP clone with the knee and the quill CNC'd and I use the knee (A) for offsetting tool lengths while using the quill (Z) to machine. It took me a long time in Mach3 to get it to work and I had a lot of help or I'd have never gotten it. So switching to Mach4 meant I needed to figure all that out again and all the guys who helped me originally abandoned Mach3 for new horizons.
One day I was on a Teamviewer with Andy from Warp9 on a Mach3/ESS issue and we got to talking about Mach4. I had installed it but never gotten far. Andy went thru Mach4 and got it all setup in about 10 minutes. When I saw how much better it ran the machine I figured I needed to figure out my tool offsetting and other customization's I used in Mach3. And I did. Took me 6 months with help here and from NFS, but I got there. No looking back now!!
By running the machine better, I mean simple things like hit feed hold. In Mach4, the machine stops right NOW, not a half an inch later. I use a physical pot to control Feed Override, twirl the pot in Mach4, it slows down right NOW, not some time in the future. Soft Limits, Mach4 zooms right up to Machine Coordinates 0 and stops, only deceleration being a factor, where Mach3 slowed down for about an inch as it got closer.
The biggest thing with the switch, other than if you have to spend money, is the mental block. Mach4 isn't Mach3 with a different look. If you try to think it to be Mach3 you'll be disappointed. Like when you type G0 X0 in MDI and hit ENTER and nothing happens! Eighteen months in and I still catch myself doing that one!!
Only thing I miss is the Mach Standard Mill screenset, a masterpiece, but I've gotten over that, too. I've incorporated all Dave Bagby's stuff, all that I actually used anyway, and that isn't now a part of Mach4, into my modified wx4.set, minus the cool green/grey colors.
My 2 cents!
Tom
-
Hi Tom,
your experience is not dissimilar to my own.
I really switched to Mach4 because of Lua. I was just starting to write code for Mach3 in VB and I hated it, it seemed to have
so many exceptions and quirks that I thought that if I was going to learn a new language at least let it be something other
than VB.
So once I got Mach4....that's when the trouble started....I struggled for quite a while, firstly trying to set up the ESS,
an operator oversight if truth be known, getting my VistaCNC pendant to work. Then I started to learn Lua, well in truth
its a much about the internal structure of Mach4 and its API as it is about Lua.
I seriously thought that I had made a mistake getting into Mach4 and NFS had made a mistake in using Lua........until
I started having some success. Then it started to make sense and the true power, flexibility even 'elegance' of Lua,
if elegance is an adjective you can apply to a computer language, came clear.
I haven't looked back since.
One of the 'telling' experiences happened when I elected to give a guy on the Mach4 forum a hand to code some stuff
to use Modbus comms to his VFD. I'd never used Modbus before so it was a bit of a battle, but we got there in the end
and I learnt a bunch on the way. A month or two later another guy, a Mach3 user wanted a hand to write some Modbus
comms for his VFD. I thought 'how hard can it be?'. I wish I'd stayed clear! The Mach3 Modbus plugin is atrocious, it works
but is confusing as hell. I'm still bemused as to how I got it to work, I did eventually. I swore I would never touch
Mach3 Modbus ever again.
I've had more opportunities to fiddle with Mach4 Modbus and it is just SO much better, all data transfer between
registers etc.
This is a recurring thing with Mach4. A certain thing (like Modbus) can be done in Mach3 and also in Mach4 but the
Mach4 interface is just so far superior. I have found it difficult if not impossible to relate that to Mach3 users
in any way that they will accept.
Craig