I think you are buying yourself some trouble. I've heard of one Chinese company producing Mach4 ready gear:

I take it back already... Managed to get a translation of the page and it was Mach3,4 Axis, not Mach4.... They don't seem to have a Mach4 version at all.

And it was Ethernet, not USB.

So it looks like I'll be staying with Win10/USB/Mach3 for a while.

Hi,
there are some perfectly good Mach4 external motion controllers both USB and Ethernet but aside from the dubious offering from XHC no Chinese made ones.

Mach4 will cost you $200USD, do you really think that it makes sense to but the cheapest possible controller and thereby limit the utility of Mach4 and that investment?
Do yourself a favour, if you are considering Mach4 get a controller that works with good documentation and manufacturers support. The Mach4 hurdle is entirely hard enough
without trying to run it on s*********t hardware.

Craig

Mach4 will cost you $200USD, do you really think that it makes sense to but the cheapest possible controller

Yes... This makes a LOT of sense to find a cheap controller. Otherwise only people with large applications who can afford to change out all their hardware will move to Mach4, and no one else will even try it. There is no legacy support for it, and while there's not a lot else I found in the same space, there are up-and-coming applications that are moving into this area, along with dedicated hardware.

And it's not $200 for Mach4. It's $2000... That's what Mach4 costs. $200 is for the Hobby Edition, and very few hobby-use-only people who need a CNC machine are going to pay thousands of dollars for one even with the hobby edition.

At a time where most people's use of CNC machines should cost around $400 all up, Mach4 risks making itself irrelevant instead of the defacto standard.

Mach3 was designed to work with a parallel port and drive everything directly. It can be improved to USB for $25 or less and work with Windows 10.  Is a $400 investment in hardware really going to make much of a difference in the output of my work? Mach3 and a breakout board cost less than $200 together. Low-end stepper controllers work OK for less than $10 each.

Anyway, I'm not too worried. If there's a market for Chinese USB or Ethernet Mach4 breakout boards, then they will appear on the market and work just as well as anything else - And if they don't appear, then it's only a reflection on Mach4 and it's failure to penetrate the market.

David

Hi,
I am a hobbyist and paid $200USD for Mach4Hobby, $180USD for a Warp9 EthernetSmoothstepper and $100USD for two Homan Designs BoBs and have a CNC solution a
quantum leap forward on Mach3. Certainly the Industrial version would be nice although it doesn't really add anything useful that you can't do with the Hobby version.

At this point in time there are no external motion controllers that work with Mach4 for under $100 unless they be knockoffs of boards that do work. The time investment
in the plugin particularly leads me to believe that no manufacturer will be selling any useful Mach4 solutions cheaply anytime soon.

Craig

Hi,
actually I've just remembered that PoKeys do a couple of boards for under $100USD that will work with Mach4 but there have some limitations that are addressed by their 57CNC board
which is fully capable but over $100USD.

Craig

Hi,
actually I've just remembered that PoKeys do a couple of boards for under $100USD that will work with Mach4 but there have some limitations.

I found it quite interesting. Looks like the biggest issues there are possibly unbuffered outputs and a lack of optoisolation in the inputs and outputs.

Still, you're right - looks like it would make a suitable base for low-cost experimentation and playing with Mach4 to see how it goes.

David

Hi,
the PoKeys 57E and 57U have somewhat fewer output suitable for step/direction and somewhat lower maximum pulse rate than the expanded version the 57CNC. But yes you are right they do make for a
relatively low cost foray into Mach4. Having said that they are still 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of the 57CNC and I think you would be disappointed if you economized only to find six months down the track wishing
you'd spent the extra to get the real deal.

Given that you are happy with Mach3 and there are plenty of low cost hardware solutions for Mach3 then why bother. The main strength of Mach4 is that it is so readily customized IF you are prepared to
program it which is especially desirable for OEMs. If you want to participate there is Mach4Hobby.

Craig

And it's not $200 for Mach4. It's $2000... That's what Mach4 costs. $200 is for the Hobby Edition, and very few hobby-use-only people who need a CNC machine are going to pay thousands of dollars for one even with the hobby edition.

The Mach4 hobby license is basically the same as the Mach3 license. Artsoft has pointed this out numerous times on the forums, but for whatever reason, they refuse to clarify their website. You only need the Industrial version if you want the Macro B feature, and phone support.

At a time where most people's use of CNC machines should cost around $400 all up, Mach4 risks making itself irrelevant instead of the defacto standard.

While there are plenty of cheap machines and controls available today to make the $400 machine a reality, there are also more people than ever willing to spend a lot more for a high quality machine control.

Artsoft has made many decisions to make sure that Mach4 will never be anywhere near as popular as Mach4, but price isn't one of them.

Artsoft has made many decisions to make sure that Mach4 will never be anywhere near as popular as Mach4, but price isn't one of them.

I'd be quite happy just being able to try the hobby version out, but even that is not possible without a significant investment. I'd love to hear more, but I guess that would go offtopic.

In the mean time, I'm starting to get good results out of Mach3 and what I've put together on a shoestring budget and it works under Windows 10, so I guess I can't really complain It's probably worth sticking to it as a long-term strategy, though I'm worried about it's relevance in the future - Is support still planned for the older version, or is all support moving to Mach4?

Thanks
David

Support and development of Mach3 ended about 5 years ago.

If you want to go off topic, feel free to PM me.