Author Topic: Mach 4 Feature Request  (Read 292421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline simpson36

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,374
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #200 on: February 21, 2015, 04:43:27 PM »
I went into the windows files and copied NOTEPAD.EXE then put it in the mach4hobby folder and renamed it to gcedit.exe and it brings up notepad as the editor now.

Dave

Brilliant.  :-*   Also works with Notepad ++. Free and far more capable version.

Offline dude1

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,251
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #201 on: February 21, 2015, 05:35:00 PM »
yes note pad why bother notepad++ correct its good.

its still up in the air if the new tormach controller is going to play well with older computers, for some people its going to be a big problem if it was me I would what a year before thinking if changing.

but I think M4 will be just as good or better its very good now for the basic functions it has I have not hit any snags yet that would stop me using M4 plus it has a laser controller whats a plus for M4.

I have had a look at useing the new version of luncnc I would put it in the hard basket there is so many thing you have to do to get it working that it`s probable it will take a day to just get it working so for some people it will be to hard.

M3/ M4 one hour and its working plus a lot of the hardware supplier`s are porting stuff over to work with M4.

and yes it would be good if in the next relise of M4 they would include tool height probing, a homing script that would move of the home switches thats all I would wont for now.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 05:40:40 PM by daniellyall »

Offline BR549

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 6,855
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #202 on: February 21, 2015, 07:27:57 PM »
It does NOT take much of a powerfull PC to work well with LinuxCNC it is NOT a resource hog. Now that they have a decent GUI front end it may be the next DIY controller.

KADOS to Greg @ Tormach

How well will it work . VERY WELL with the MESA line of cards.  Mach4 would do well to do the same thing adapt to the Mesa line of hardware. Top notch hardware at a reasonable price.

The first thing Mach4 needs is to be polished up for average JOE to use. there are many things missing yet ON SCREEN.

Just my Opinion, your's may differ (;-) TP




Offline dude1

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,251
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #203 on: February 21, 2015, 08:13:17 PM »
yer I know all that but its still a hard program to set up most of it is over my head, I am dyslexic (I have a wearied version numbers and formulas look like nothing to me ) so most of look`s gobly gook to me.

there is no dedicated laser control, if there is I have not seen it.

the mesa card may be a good idea Brian can you please try or someone chime in (does it work with lua) can you give me the board number or model you think will work, I would like to read up on it I need to do something to get my big f`en machine working faster than 1250 mm/min

Offline BR549

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 6,855
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #204 on: February 21, 2015, 08:54:31 PM »
The Pilot can be just as easy as Mach3 if they created a  GUI like Mach3 has. It does NOT " have" to be difficult to set up.

If there was a real NEED for the laser control there will be one. (;-) THE ONLY reason Mach4 darwin has it is because ART has 2 lasers to play with otherwise you would have NEVER seen it.


Offline simpson36

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,374
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #205 on: February 21, 2015, 10:10:24 PM »
I feel compelled to comment that it is as reasonable to compare Tormach's new system to MACH4 as it is to compare stepper motors and servo motors . . and the same useless arguments would abound.

MAch4 is specifically designed to be extensible and allow users and developers access to the data and resources to use MACH as a base for not only routine CNC, but many other specialty applications.

Tormach, following their well documented edict of preventing users form even changing a single parameter, has done little more (from where I am viewing, and I have read all of their published propaganda on this new toy)  than taken one of many thousands of public domain softwares and modified it and if you buy the official spin, 'improved' it greatly. However, unlike most who engage in the intended spirit of public domain software, Tormach's modifications are not shared with the community from whence their 'invention' actually came, but have added self serving features specifically designed and intended to keep (exclusively) their own users out and reduce their support load by restricting what users can do with their own machines.

It took me 5 minutes to get into Tormach's 'locked' MACH3. Now perhaps they will be more successful at dictating what their users may and may not do, especially if they are successful in propagating the new master into the existing field.  Pilot is a means to an end.

With such vastly different objectives, making a direct comparison is akin to comparing a cow to an acorn.


Your mileage may vary . . . .  :'( 

Offline dude1

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 1,251
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #206 on: February 21, 2015, 11:08:52 PM »
as simpson says the old tormach controller did take 5 mins to break if everyone worked out how to do it I think it would have been better for all, I worked out how to do it to, it was to easy, change start icon that's all it was.
also the computer they used was not the best that`s why I said about changing over old tormach computers.

its a point I can prove if I could afford to (send computer`s to someone to confirm ), its as simple as this two machine same screen set same everything over than size, one machine never had a single problem with M3 the other was a  S___ head to use.

decide for fun to change computers around the machine that was a S___ head to use all problems went away machine that never had a problem became a good anchor.

so that means all problems could not be put down to M3 some if not all could be the computer that the machine was attached to.

I talked to a computer person about it what he said it would have been was the computers clock timing not keeping up for meany different reasons from ram speed, to hard drive being slow or even the graphic card being slow.

BR549
linuxcnc does not to be hard to install but it is there is so many different things you have to do its not funny of course the GUI different ones windows the other ones linux`s.

yes there would be no laser controller if art did not do it but it`s a big plus and it works very well on a program that is not finished.

it is a good reason to stick with M4 I have one router that's to small to be of any use to me its been in the corner for 3 years too now it will be able to do A4 size engravings so its going to be a laser engraver now.

also on the big machine I use I will put a laser engraver on it so pick`s or what ever can put on something if it`s required when doing a job so it`s going to be a 2 in 1 machine for less than $400.

so that's my reason for using M4 on those machines the other one its just going to be for a test to see if there is a improvement in its performances compered to M3 then M4 when it comes out its has a fault somewhere that I can suppress but not find.

BR549 art`s got more than 2 laser`s

it would be interesting to see if tormarches new controller can be unlocked to see if its the same as the new version of linuxcnc as its in beta the same as pathpoilt

Offline BR549

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 6,855
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #207 on: February 21, 2015, 11:20:02 PM »
Steve you have never OWNED a real commercial CNC machine have you (;-) Most newer ones you cannot even MOVE that machine across the shop without having a Service man come back in to reset the alarm BIT so it will run again. They let you do NOTHING internally.

Greg at Tormach did exactly what he should be doing in "HIS" world . Locking the user out from the internals that they have little to no need to be tinkering with in there.  In that WORLD you have to protect the users from themselves AND protect the machine so it can be stable and the OEM can trouble shoot it.

NOW REMEMBER Tormach gave everyone the  option to UNLOCK the Mach3 machine so YOU could have at it. But at point you were on you OWN as to trouble shooting it WHEN you messed it up.  

The NEW Tormach unit is a dedicated CNC machine controller , Same as HAAS,OKUMA,MAZAK, etc,etc.( Just a smaller scale)  NOT a do everything motion thingy to make everyone happy.

IS there a market for both ??  Should be but the users base has shifted from days past. I see more and more DIYers sell the toys and buy small Commercial CNC machines new and used.  They would rather make things rather than TINKER on the machine.

Time will tell who's approach is best for the New CNC user generation(plug-n-CUT). This Generation is VERY different from the last one(;-)

Call Mazak and TELL them you want access to the internals of the Mazatrol and see what answer you get.  Bin there tried that as well (;-)

Just a thought, (;-) TP

Offline BR549

  • Mach4 Alpha
  • Posts: 6,855
    • View Profile
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #208 on: February 21, 2015, 11:36:33 PM »
Daniell, If Greg did his job, and he has been known to. The pilot will be as or easier to configure than Mach3. All you need is a GOOD User interface to make it easy. Instead of hving to program the Internal configs from a command line.

I HAVE a LinuxCNC  machine here. The Controller other than having a very HOMELY GUI works as it should. No unknow crashes,no broken PROBES, tools fixture, OR surpises in the middle of a job.  SO I know how Linux CNC works (;-)  It is the same MACHINE that I USED to have mach3 on for testing. A  Series1 CNC Bridgeport mill with 1kw ac servos. IT will sling chips all day long.

As to OEMS using the EMC source code to model from without providing THEIR source code. Art did not with Mach1/2/3, Eding did not, planet CNC did not, and all the others that used the EMC base code did not as well.

Just a thought, (;-) TP


Online ger21

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 6,127
    • View Profile
    • The CNC Woodworker
Re: Mach 4 Feature Request
« Reply #209 on: February 21, 2015, 11:39:36 PM »
As to OEMS using the EMC source code to model from without providing THEIR source code. Art did not with Mach1/2/3, Eding did not, planet CNC did not, and all the others that used the EMC base code did not as well.


None of them released their own version of LinuxCNC.
Gerry

2010 Screenset
http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html

JointCAM Dovetail and Box Joint software
http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html