Hello Guest it is April 18, 2019, 01:01:18 PM

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 - smurph

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Re: Mach 4 and Galil
« on: June 30, 2014, 06:54:00 PM »
If you are running an Ethernet controller, then no Galil software is required and you use the regular Galil plugin (not Galil-st).  Smart Term can be installed and it will co-exists fine.  Only use Galil-st plugin if you are running an older bus based controller.


Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Re: Mach 4 and Galil
« on: June 30, 2014, 06:35:35 PM »
Mach 3 runs fine for me.  Once I got it all setup and quit messing with it, the combo is very stable.  Mach 4 has smoother motion and eventually will have more features.  For instance, Mach 4 has a version that has Fanuc Custom Macro B where Mach 3 will never have that.  But if you want a machine running now or yesterday, then Mach 3 is what I would use.  Simply because the Galil plugin for Mach 4 is still in development.


Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Re: Mach 4 and Galil
« on: June 30, 2014, 05:39:55 PM »
The output from Mach to external controllers is the same be it Mach 3 or Mach 4.  It is not pulse and direction.  It is position over time, or just PT for short.  Mach 4 will add velocity to that output as well (PVT).  But plain old PT matches up well with Galil's Linear Interpolation mode and it is perfect for Contour mode.  The newer Galils have PVT mode as well.

The parallel port is operating the same way.  It gets the PT values from Mach and then makes the signals to the pins to provide pulse and direction.  But the internal method of motion planning is really the same.


Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 Bug Reports
« on: June 30, 2014, 05:28:36 PM »

As far as the tool path not showing in the other window, it may be a video card or driver issue.  We only use 1 vertex buffer to display ALL tool paths.  If it not displaying in all tool paths, it is probably something to to with your video card's OpenGL implementation.

Let me know your machine specs.  video card manufacturer, memory, OS, etc...

Blanks lines and single block:  Right now, each line is a line regardless of if it contains G code or otherwise.  I will try and see if I can make it loop through the blank lines.

Also, when asking about a previous post, if you would quote it that would be awesome.  It will help make sure I'm actually answering the right question.


Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 - COM Object
« on: June 30, 2014, 05:18:44 PM »
It is not LUA based.  However, one could use LUA.  It is basically a library that implements the regular C API via IPC.  So to make a remote application, all one needs to do is link with the MachIPC lib instead of the MachAPI lib.  The function calls are identical.  In fact, the mcLuaEditor is using it.  That is how it calls Mach API functions when debugging LUA scripts.  When the scripts are run in the context of Mach, they are using the direct API.


Galil / Re: Help with general inputs
« on: June 19, 2014, 12:05:47 AM »
The pin assignments are in the Galil plugin doc pdf that can be downloaded from the Mach website.


The basic controller is OK.  Not the best.  A 41x3 or 40x0 are preferred.  But the  SDM-20640 & SDM-20242 ICMs on that 2183 are not good for external amps.  I would continue looking.  And I would also consider using a controller other than a Galil if you have step/dir amps.  Like Ethernet Smooth Stepper or HiCON. 

Unless you have analog command amps, using the Galil is just plain not needed.  It is like buying a dump truck to carry a few bags of groceries from the local store.  Hugely more expensive and not worth the effort.


No.  The 1423 is a two axis controller.  If you want to us step/dir, there are a lot of cheaper and less complicated controllers to use.  Or did you mean 4123?  Even so, that is a two axis controller that can be expanded to 4 axes.  The fact that it has 4 D sub connectors is not going to give to 4 axes.

41x3.  The x is the number of axes available on the controller.  However, it can be upgraded to 4 axes.  Just send it to Galil.  They will charge $200 for the mod plus $100 per axis added.  So The bill would be $400.00 plus shipping to get that controller in the provided link to be 4 axes.

It pays to know what you are buying on eBay.  Because unscrupulous or ignorant sellers can misrepresent the controller.  The fact that the TOP stickers says 4123 MEANS is is a 2 axis controller.  Also, the controller that is linked has amps in it.  There are two square Molex connectors that are present and there are two that are not present.  Another clue that this is indeed a 2 axis controller.  For external drives/amps, that ICM style in not preferred.  The I200 ICM is the one for external amps.  So from Galil, the part number for a 4 axis controller would be DMC-4143-I200.  That is what you want. 


Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 - COM Object
« on: June 14, 2014, 01:24:36 AM »
COM is not supported.  However, there is an IPC interface that works the same across all targeted platforms (Windows, Linux and Mac).


Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 Bug Reports
« on: June 05, 2014, 02:41:40 AM »

Normally, the macros will not have the issues you are seeing.  The reason why you are seeing them now is that we changed LUA versions between build 1767 and 1817 and there are incompatibilities with the compiled scripts between the versions.  Normally, the installer will install the macros with mcc files that work and there will be no issues.

For the macros, Mach uses the mcc files.  The mcs files are just a way of getting to the mcc files that us humans can read and modify.  Mach can run without ANY mcs files if the mcc files are compiled and correct. 

Changing LUA versions is not something we will do once we release.  We just made a push to get to the latest code base for everything we use so that we don't feel the need to do it at a later date after release.  In the future, a normal user should never see this.

Build 1817 has a whole host of changes including a move to wxWidgets 3.0, LUA 5.2, and we went from using the static CRT to the dynamic CRT.  Hence the massive difference in build numbers.  I also did a wholesale change on the API (I'm so glad I haven't re-written the API docs again!).

We have one more big change to do before release which is the installation location (feature request and docs not withstanding).  We are planning to conform to MS program installation locations so that Mach will be installed in the "Program Files" for system wide operation (requiring Admin privs) or it can also be installed in a user folder without admin privs.