Messages

331

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Comments about Mach4 in Demo

« on: April 29, 2014, 02:06:01 PM »

Nothing stops you from continuing to use Mach3 with a parallel port. When you need to move on to a new PC you will likely be out of luck. Brian has already said they are working with Art to get a parallel port plug-in, so what are you guys whining about?

First of all, Jeff, 'we' if I may be presumptuous, are not whining with selfish motive. We are whining at the behest of the unfortunate huddled masses who, unlike ourselves, do not enjoy the benefits of third party motion control. It is a noble cause . .  and a thankless one . .  but somebody has to speak up for the unblessed among us. 

Secondly, the question has evolved past doing an LPT driver and speaking for myself only, I was addressing the comment of being at Microsoft's mercy and the desire to have some 'control of our destiny'. Circumventing the guard dogs in the OS would accomplish that . . if it is doable.

Greg and Tom come to mind as people with the skill set to make a 'Smoothstepper-Lite' or 'Baby K-flop'.  Had I the skill set, I would be doing it instead of simply whining about it. Alas, I do not. However, I am good at whining, and therefor the best option is to throw some seeds to those who have the talent and see if anything grows. 

332

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Comments about Mach4 in Demo

« on: April 29, 2014, 01:49:11 PM »

simpson36,

It is not a simple question of using a port address that Windows does not
normally treat as a printer port. The newer versions of Windows, especially
the 64 bit versions, control ALL access to ports and memory. The only way
to get data to a device is to ask Windows to do it for you. Unfortunately
Windows wants either certified device drivers, or devices that mimic the
standard printer, USB, or Ethernet that consumers use. Note that Windows
will allow you to write to a "printer" but not to the pins of a printer port.
The difference is how it gets done. Windows will deliver all the data, just
not with the timing that you are hoping to achieve. For this reason a
printer port under Windows 64 bit or any USB "printer" device will not
provide reliable timing for the step pulses used for CNC control.

Steve Stallings
www.PMDX.com

I get it that Windows will not allow you to write to LPT pins, however, my thought was that if windows did NOT know it there were pins or that it was an LPT. Talking directly the UART thru a driver *seems* to me like it would not be significantly different from talking to a DSS or a DAC or any other LSIC and there are lots and lots of those kind of special purpose cards that do all sorts of stuff that Windows would not have traps for.

Development goes on for the Smoothstepper and now (as of this thread) the Kflop so apparently a special purpose device can be reached thru USB and Ethernet ports with current 64 bit versions of Windows. My question, in a nutshell, was why could not those same methods be used for a much simpler card that only generates the a matrix of on/off for the pin array by decoding a simple pre-defined command set? Toggling the physical pin array would be done on the other side of the driver from Windows and outside of memory space, so why would Windows interfere?

Timing, of course is another issue altogether. Windows does allow the priority to be set on each process, and the top setting is 'real time', but in my experience, that does not actually get full time attention for any process, even with multiple processors and the affinity set to an otherwise unused processor.

It seems I have not considered the larger problem of timing, yet there must be some solution as the Smoothstepper and Kflop do work. I wish I knew more about the issue. It looks like an interesting challenge. 

333

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Comments about Mach4 in Demo

« on: April 29, 2014, 10:18:47 AM »

I UNDERSTAND your points BUT (;-)

Why would you want to leave ALL those LPTers stranded in the desert. All their hardware is going to work as long as thier PCs still functions(not dead) and they can still find parts to fix the PCs. AND they are still the CORE of Mach users.

I am NOT saying not to move on as everyone else in the modern world HAS moved to a motion control card.

(;-) TP

I agree with you 100%.

Were I in the business of selling motion control boards, I might see this as a marketing opportunity to provide an inexpensive product that would be a solution for the LPT issue and also provide a seamless upgrade path to my flagship motion control product.

Taking the idea a step further, if such a product couple be produced for say US$50, it could be bundled with MACH4 with a $50 off coupon or a trade-in privilege to move to the full motion control product.

334

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Comments about Mach4 in Demo

« on: April 29, 2014, 10:00:56 AM »

I'm wondering if all you guys who are in love with the LPT still use 5.25" or 3.5" floppy discs.

Jeff,

I don't think it is a question of what is the best solution. My assumption is that the entire LPT  topic is alive only because of the many hundreds (or thousands) of existing systems that run on LPT and would move to Mach4 if and only if they could do so without also making a simultaneous leap to a complex and potentially troublesome motion control board.

Smoothstepper has a very spotty reputation and Kflop is definitely not a product for a novice user. Everything else (that I am aware of ) is very expensive.

If MACH4 is all it is hyped to be, and it comes in a 'hobby' version, then why penalize the masses who do not choose (or are understandable afraid of) moving to a motion control solution?

One point is inarguable; for Newfangled, a $200 sale is a $200 sale. It would be an extreme blunder (in my opinion) for them not to provide an inexpensive 'no brainer' solution for their many hundreds of potential buyers using LPT, regardless of how primitive it may be.

Rather than dwelling on the downside, perhaps an enterprising individual with the resources and talent might come up with an inexpensive and bulletproof solution as I described in an earlier post. Personally I have neither, but I'd wager there are more than a few in the MACH community that do.

335

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Comments about Mach4 in Demo

« on: April 29, 2014, 06:47:30 AM »

On the topic of 'to be or not to be'  LPT port, has anyone considered targeting an address configurable LPT card?

Let's say an LPT card costs about 10 bucks. This is not going to impact any rational decision to purchase MACH4. Most new computers don't have LPT ports anyway, so purchasing an add-in card is pretty much a given.

Would it be possible to have MACH4 talk to the UART on an LPT card thru a specific address which is not recognized (and blocked) by the OS. i.e. just use the hardware on an LPT card as an 'interface' between MACH4 and existing LPT based systems. If the OS does not see the UART functioning as an LPT, theoretically it would not interfere. Many moons ago I was trying different LPT cards and several did not register with Windows as LPT ports. They had drivers that emulated the LPT and passed the data stream to the hardware on the card. Absent that driver, the OS pretty much ignored the card.

Alternately, a USB device to simply mimic the simple on/off behavior of the handful of LPT pins would not be complicated or expensive to produce. MACH4 could then just send words to the device to be decoded into the pin array that matches the LPT layout.

There are a  lot of ways to skin this cat, but the overall idea would be to have an alternative to a full motion control solution (Kflop, Smoothstepper, etc) at a low cost that would simply mimic an LPT port. If outside the OS, the valid arguments about Microsoft unexpectedly mucking things up would be eliminated.

Just thinking out loud . . . 

336

Mach3 under Vista / Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

« on: January 27, 2014, 06:12:55 AM »

Hi, guys, I know the thread got a bit tangled, but for those who see the subject line might be interested in seeing this site: http://www.project1a.com/cnc.html
Hope that it helps-

It does help to reinforce the notion that people use their 'CNC controller' to run more that just plain vanilla MACH3. The author of the linked article had success only to a point. He says:
 
"Specifically, I wanted to have Cambam installed because, even though I wouldn't do any major design work on this computer, it would sometimes be handy to be able to produce gcode for simple cases without moving to a different computer."

However, his progress is summed up thus:

"Unfortunately, my efforts at installing Cambam have been fruitless so far. I'll try again later. "

And so ends the article.

Surfing the web, watching YouTube or reading E-mail are arguably not realistic needs for a CNC computer, but Above is an example of a valid App to have available. Some others might be Feed Rate calculators, G-code viewers and/or editors, G-code generators and simple geometry editors *Vectrix CUT2D is one that I use, and I can go on and on.

The argument has been correctly made that these kind of satellite utilities CAN be run on a remote computer, however, I suspect that such arguments must come from  people who are running a simple stepper setup with the PP have therefor no need for servo configuration and diagnostic software.

Systems that employ industrial drives have the need to run such software, usually on the CNC host machine. These capabilities are filtering down to hobby level stuff as well with at least one hobby level servo drive vendor that provides servo config software that requires .NET to be installed on the host machine in order for the config software to run.

So, can the .NET package be installed on a particular Embedded Windows XP hardware?  It should be a simple question, but getting an answer seems all but impossible and is made more difficult by that vocal group of stepper users who insist it is not necessary, as if that is an answer.

In any case, the customer who I was doing this research for has now purchased a new PC with Windows 7  and the Tormach 'CNC controller' shall become a door stop. So far as I know this puts the score back to 100% as far as  my Tormach users ditching the sertup as delivered, so I have no further interest in the topic and this will be my last post.

In parting, I do want to make one last quote from this thread:

. . . . please feel free to sue me if anything I've said is incorrect. (or snipe back at me again - whichever lights your candle the brightest).

Clearly, the banter in this thread was by invitation. I do enjoy sparring with a challenging opponent, be it physical or verbal. Yeah, I have some moves, but I take my lumps too and I don't whine about it. However, I do no beat up 12 year old students, and it is never, and I will repeat never, my intention to be mean spirited and make an intentional verbal degredation of anyone. If I am swapping insults with someone, be sure of two things, 1) it is all in fun and 2) I think the opponent is capable of kicking my A$$. Now surely that would be fun to watch.  There are a number of well know rivalries here and on CNC zone that have nothing to do with me. I did not invent anything new. Some people watch a boxing match and then post that the winner is a mean person because he hit the other guy. Hello, its boxing. If you are afraid of getting bruised, don't get in the ring. If you can't stand the sight of blood, then don't watch. 

Personally I love competition, but I despise bullfighting . . so I don't watch bullfighting.  Its not complicated.

 Have a nice day . . . .

337

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / Re: 4 axis feedrate coordination

« on: January 26, 2014, 06:35:46 AM »

 Mach will ignore everything else and calculate the correct 4th axis federate for a move using G93 (provided you have the bandwidth - rotary axis pulse rates can get very high in a hurry).   

I have never used G93, my CAM does not support it.

However I assume Mach will still honour the maximum velocity as set in motor tuning. (normal rapid speed)  If so, then why will pulse rates go beyond normal levels ?

Greolt

My comment about bandwidth was only to point out that Rotary axii require very high pulse rates compared to linear. So much so that often on first exposure, users think there is something wrong when actually the system (particularly if using a PP) is maxed out and the rotary axis is not 'spinning' as expected.
 
However, you raise an very good point about the set maximums being honored.  Clipping an excessive rate would have to come after the G93 calculation determines the rate, and I don't know if Mach does that or not. It is certainly a good question and one that should be answered/tested. I just moved my shop and my machines are down or I would have done that before posting back. Perhaps somebody can MDI a super fast G93 and post the result. It would be very good info to have.

I would think that the CAM software would specify the federate in the G93, so normally an 'overspeed' condition that would not be a problem.

To your specific question, I am not sure what you mean by 'normal' levels, but if you mean the global F setting, then yes, a G93 federate will go beyond. The F setting and all of the parameters that effect it (except probably accel) seem to be ignored when G93 is active.

338

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / Re: 4 axis feedrate coordination

« on: January 25, 2014, 10:55:23 AM »

In addition to getting Mach set up correctly (already being addressed by others), you might take a look at using the G93 federate, provided your CAM supports Inverse Time.

It seems that if you identify A as rotary and that the steps per degree is correct, Mach will ignore everything else and calculate the correct 4th axis federate for a move using G93 (provided you have the bandwidth - rotary axis pulse rates can get very high in a hurry).  

339

Mach3 under Vista / Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

« on: January 24, 2014, 03:14:00 PM »

Indian,

Well, there goes the neigborhood. I had a feeling this thread was going to go this way. I am flattered that you used your very first post on helping me to understand my psychological problems, but your post has nothing whatever to do with the topic.

Ian is one of the big dogs. Do you really think he needs your help to keep me in line?  I only banter about with people on this forum who I feel, in my grand arrogance, are worth bantering with.  I have not posted anything on CNC zone in ages, so whatever 'consensus' you have must be a historical one. Really, you give me too much credit. I have not claimed to be an expert and nobody is loosing any sleep over what I have to say.

Maybe you can find an old lady who needs help crossing the street and you can feel important doing that. Or post under your real screen name and contribute something useful to the topic.

Better yet would be for Ian or another moderator to delete this entire thread. It wasn't very useful to start with (my fault for using the 'T' word), but now it serves no purpose at all. 

340

Mach3 under Vista / Re: Use of Embeeded Widows OS - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

« on: January 24, 2014, 08:30:59 AM »

No I didn't you muppet.

Too vague. This has no insult value   

Please be more specific. I don't think they have a horse muppet.  Miss Piggy, perhaps?


You need to relax, Ian. Its not all about you.