Hello Guest it is March 29, 2024, 09:03:32 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PSG

Pages: 1 2 3 »
1
Third party software and hardware support forums. / Mach and Android
« on: January 30, 2011, 05:05:03 AM »

I see that there is a way to run/control mach via an iPhone. Does anybody know of any Anndroid apps that will work with Mach?

TIA

2
VB and the development of wizards / Re: The equal sign in VB
« on: January 07, 2010, 12:22:34 PM »

Thank you to both of you. You are right Ian, I did ask  ;D . It must be some sort of insanity that sets in after a while  ;D

I have always known the usefulness of custom macros in Mach but I am really starting to see the real power that is available. The questions come from an auto-zero script posted by another Mach user. I already have a zero script that works well so I am not in a bind to make one work but in reading this script I see the "DIM" and of course the "equals" sign. I was always under the impression that in order write scripts for Mach that I would need to memorize an endless list of commands and oem codes. In reading this script, it gives the feel of the old "basic" (Commadore64 stuff - the last time I ever wrote a piece of code  :))

If you guys or someone can help me define the attached script, I think it will be a great help in understanding.

TIA

3
VB and the development of wizards / The equal sign in VB
« on: January 06, 2010, 05:31:15 PM »

Please bare with me. I am trying to learn VB so the some of the questions may seem silly or stupid. Up until now, the Cypress VB doc is only partially helpful. I seem to have better luck by reading actual known/working scripts and deciphering the operation.

The questions I have (today) are in regards to "DIM" and "=".

1. If I where to assign values/names using the "=", can I therefore just use that name in script that follows instead?
2. What does "DIM" do?

Again not trying to ask silly/stupid questions. Just trying to get a handle on VB.

TIA

4
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« 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!


5
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« 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 :)

6
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« 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 :)



7
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« 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.

8
General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« 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.

9
General Mach Discussion / Re: No Movement
« on: October 12, 2009, 09:19:16 PM »

It could be one of a bunch of things. If you look at the Mach manuals you will find a setup guide for Mach3. That may help.

Starting at what "I" believe may be the beginning, do you have the correct LTP address setup in Mach?

10
General Mach Discussion / Re: Homing Problem
« on: January 07, 2009, 01:50:46 AM »
Jim,

Maybe the odd hiccup (or gremlin) is what I am experiencing. The machine seems to run great and nothing that I have posted about is anything that would put me out of commission. The RESET condition has not happened in the last dozen tests. If it does occur I will watch the limits and see what they do. The proxies I refer to are proximity switches/sensors that see metal as compared to micro switches.

As complicated as the coding behind Mach is, the setup is easy if one pays attention to the details (sometimes guilty here) :) I do not have the confidence in VB yet but I am slowly getting there.

Brett,

The one thing that I did not do was turn off the plug-ins. I have since added a Shuttle Pro but I did just turn off the Flash and Video plug-ins.

As I originally said I am slowly getting there :) My jogging issue has been long gone, RESET problem may be gone, and I am narrowing down a possible intermittent referencing problem.


Pages: 1 2 3 »