Messages

1

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Series I with Acu-Rite II DRO and power feed

« on: August 14, 2009, 12:11:18 PM »

Many thanks!   You just saved me from spending money in the wrong place.

2

General Mach Discussion / Bridgeport Series I with Acu-Rite II DRO and power feed

« on: August 14, 2009, 11:05:32 AM »

Hello all:

First, I've downloaded and read the Mach3 manual (PDF).  I'm going to ask what will probably sound like some pretty naive questions regarding actual hardware, but here goes.

1) If I acquire a fairly late model Bridgeport Series I with Acu-Rite II DRO and power feed, doesn't the dedicated DRO become somewhat redundant given the functionality of Mach3 ?

2) I assume the existing power feed servos will interface with Mach3 via an appropriate controller? . . .or

3) To what extent can the existing Acu-Rite DRO interface with an additional controller, or otherwise serve as or be modified to serve as the controller.

 

3

General Mach Discussion / Re: We need Linux port

« on: August 14, 2009, 10:21:01 AM »

RE: 

@rtwingfield- It wouldn't be fair to discuss EMC2 in all it's details here so we can move to CNCZONE if you like. The distro is Ubuntu 8.04 realtime kernel and the frontend is AXIS which is a python dev. My handle at CNCZONE is same as here

. . .first, I'd like to say that I really appreciate all the civil response to this thread.  I certainly didn't want to stir up a "Flamer".  Obviously, I've indicated that I'm not a big fan of MS/Windoze.  That said, of course I use Windoze -- you can't get away from it.   I use Rhino CAD, TurboCAD 3D, and of course all the usual suspects (MS/Word, Corel WordPerfect, Excel, QuatroPro, Adobe PhotoShop, ad nauseam.)

I also appreciate the invitation to keep the discourse open in this thread, but I am also an advocate of filing or posting questions and answers under a topic where others may easily search and find the same . . .so I agree that continuing an EMC2/Ubuntu discussion may be more beneficial on the suggested forum.  Again thanks for all the positive comments regarding both Mach and EMC2.

What I'd like to discuss now are questions regarding specific machine configurations.   What would be the best thread (or forum) to discuss interfacing Mach3 with a Bridgeport Series I with Acu-Rite II DRO and power feed?  I've looked at the subject under "General Mach Discussion" and most seem to be software oriented.  If I want to ask some questions about the hardware that I just mentioned, should I just start a new thread, or go to another forum?

Sincere thanks,
Ron W.

4

General Mach Discussion / Re: We need Linux port

« on: August 13, 2009, 09:59:00 PM »

Thanks for the "head-up" on this utility.   I've book-marked it . . .and I can see some possibilities outside the CAD/CAM arena for it.

5

General Mach Discussion / Re: We need Linux port

« on: August 13, 2009, 09:56:49 PM »

I've worked in applications analysis/design/programming, e.g., mgf. accounting, MRP, JIT, etc. for over 30 yrs.   I DO understand.   Somewhere above . . .I mentioned that it's just not a simple task to take some C++ code (or whatever) and compile it on another OS.

6

General Mach Discussion / Re: We need Linux port

« on: August 13, 2009, 01:38:09 PM »

What *nix are you running EMC on?  As I've previously mentioned, I've read that Ubuntu is a choice.  I've searched the FreeBSD forums and haven't found any references regarding running EMC on the same.  The reason I'm interested in a "unix" platform is because I'm much more comfortable and confident of *nix OS'es.   I think it's fair to say that Windoze comes with a lot of overhead.  On the other hand, I've got FreeBSD installed on a 540mb hard-drive that is only about 60% utilized (user files are on a separate 200 gb drive).  I know that "unix" has a learning curve, but it's certainly much easier to administrate once you get over the hump.  In defense of Windoze, it IS an easier install. but after the install, I think I'd double check to make sure that it didn't install or otherwise auto configure anything to poll for "thing to do" while you're not looking.   

I've read the Mach3 PDF manual regarding installation on Windoze, and the caveats about certain Windoze services, interrupts, conflict with networking, etc. are what concern me.  If I install Mach3 on a Windoze box, I will dedicate the box to Mach -- no active network; very few aps such as virius scanners/firewalls, etc. running in the background; won't be doing any word-processing; no flight simulator; no scheduled programs to wake up and look for a mouse driver update, etc.   Essentially I'd do the same with a *nix based system; however, with a *nix OS, I can fine tune the kernel, and easily configure the OS via the various unix config files, etc.   This latter scenario is something that is very difficult to do with Windoze.  Microsoft does not share much regarding kernel tuning and other nuances of the OS.

7

General Mach Discussion / Re: We need Linux port

« on: August 13, 2009, 08:54:07 AM »

Actually, no, I didn't know that Mach and EMC have a common origin.   Like I said, (on a need to know basis) I'm new to the actual process of CNC programming.   I've googled and found some info on EMC and apparently Ubuntu's real-time kernel is a recommended (unix) platform . . .also read some reports of crash problems with it.   Thanks for the heads-up.   

BTW, several years ago, I was working with an associate who commented "Is it really real-time if an instruction is sent to the Voyager satellite and it responds two hours later?"   

8

General Mach Discussion / Re: We need Linux port

« on: August 12, 2009, 03:02:25 PM »

Hello All:   I'm new here, but first let me say that I like what I see regarding the trial download of Mach3.  My only reservation is that it runs under Windoze . . .just an awful, awful excuse for an operating system.   I've read the caveats regarding the interaction of Windoze's interrupts, conflicts with networking services, internal clocking, etc. and that's what concerns me.   As for a Linux port, to me Linux is just another "unix" with a gooie.   I would prefer a port to a unix platform like FreeBSD where we can do some kernel configuration, and generally have open access to the OS.     Having worked as an applications programmer/analyst for over thirty years, I DO understand that you just can't simply take pages of (an assumption) C++ code and recompile it on a different OS architecture and expect it to work; never the less, it would be more secure and stable on a unix platform . . .just my two cents.    (. . .and I know that EMC is out there, too.)