SImpson I am a BIT more optomistic about Mach4. FIRST I look at the GCODE side. THAT is the MOST important PART of mach4 you can have. AND it works very very well and with just a few bug fixes it will be great. Mach4 NOW does every thing GCODE wise that one needs to have to do GOOD CNC work AT the HOBBY or industrial LEVEL and this IS the hobby version we are playing with.
As to suggestions (;-) YOU ASKED FOR THEM SO YOU GET THEM.
Basically because as Steve said it is all one large package of code and the license sets the usage of the features. In that line of thinking then YES it is going to need features created for industrial that most HOBBY users will never use BUT it still requires those features to be created. AND also as STEVE said yo have NO IDEA how it will be used by the USERS. When you get people like me I will beat it 12 ways to Sunday JUST to see what it can and cannot do. There are as meany ways to do things as there are hairs on your head out in the real world. THAT is when you find all the ODDs things you never thing about people doing with it.
AND yes I am classed as ODD, no dought. BUT I also WILL get the job done one way or another.
The updates to the tool table WILL benifit BOTH sides as MORE AND MORE users are going to ATC as ATCs are being developed for the DIY side.
NOW My suggestions for the Tool table are to suport BOTH ATC and NON ATC users alike. The actual ATC function code is normally done in ladder but COULD be done in LUA as there is NO dought that LUA is fast but is it integrated fully yet
? I see a lot of errors go unchallenged and no error messages and no responce from Mach4 other than just crashing out. So yes there is a LOT of work ahead but I think it has started to go downhill now as things are getting fixed/improved.
Take the Mcode problem if it gets fixed properly(and it WILL get fixed) it will be NICE and very usefull. Most don't realize JUST how usefull that will be . You will be able to create what amounts to you OWN Gcode canned cycle functions and have them available with a simple M202 call. The acutal MOTION code would be in SUB/macro format so it is EASY to support/change. That is IF they get the Gcode Editor fixed so we can write gcode SUBS/MACROS easily. (;-)
Just a note a Tool changer program in ladder than runs the physical tool changer is NOT 10,000 lines of ladder code maybe 100-200 lines or more depending on the complexity of the tool changer.
As to the developement TIME frame I came into the MACH group about MIDWAY in. It was Art and friends doing ALL the work. I think we drove Art a bit crazy because he went at it like a mad man. (that is a good thing). As to Mach4 and the available resources they are going to have to either spend at LOT of MONEY(hiring MORE people, not always a good thing) OR spend a lot more TIME to get it all done. AND yes time is money but you cannot preload a small company with TONS of developement dedt and expect it to survive in the long run.
I can also say without doubtt that the MACH group is the NICEST and MOST TALENTED group one could EVER hope to work with PERIOD. SO far there is LITTLE in the MACH realm that they cannot create an ANSWER for to your problem about Mach3. I don't think Mach4 wiil be much different but there fewer Players now than before.
Bringing out a NEW CNC control today is NOT like when Art brought out MACH1/2/3 . Today there are MANY PC based CNC controllers that can DO the CNC CONTROLLER job as good or better than Mach3 and have more features to boot.
That is NOT saying that MACH4 should not be developed. Just that you have to look at things differently than we did in MACH3..
OnlY TIME will telll the REST of the story. Just FIX the Gcode side bugs while you wait PLEASE.
(;-) TP
Guest
Show Posts
