Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Trying to workout if I stick with UCCNC or buy a new controller card and go to Mach4...
I did a few basic cutting comparisons between Mach3 and UCCNC and Mach3 seems to cut rounder holes and generally work better. As I am new CNCing I was wondering what others thought of UCCNC in a direct comparison to Mach3.
Looking for perceived or measurable differences between the two, and if one is favoured over the other based on performance rather than bias.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
don't know about the uccnc control but M4 is way better than M3, things in M4 happen when they are meant too
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Do you find M4 cuts better than M3?
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
I haven't got that far yet but will next week on a big router running a ESS.
what I can say is its faster and smother than M3 I ran a air test for 4 hours where it started it stopped on all axis, the speed change on the spindle was instant no lag using the speed over ride.
the machine I tested on ran a G540 and a superpid for speed control.
I have now converted it over to a laser running M4 and Darwin with a arduino as the laser control it works like a dream no laser on it yet I had it connected to a scope to test the laser output it was very fast changing laser power.
I ran a half arise test last week on a not properly set up laptop (what I new would not work well) to test a aerier ridden test on M3 and M4, M3 was out by a mile (1.24 mm on Z axis) M4 was just out (.42 mm on Z axis) turned the wireless internet off and antivirus the error when to .24 on Z in M3 and .04 in M4.
so next week when I run it on a correctly set up laptop I think I will have it to .00 something the test I do is a 1000 line Z axis movements at different speeds its done at 1000 line so if i run it and its out by the same amount each time I know how far it will be out in more Z movements.
if it out by a round about number like +0.02 then -0.04 then 0.00 its all good
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Will be interesting to hear your thoughts once you have it running properly.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
I've considered giving uncnc a try but while running it in demo mode I've noticed that it doesn't support g18/19 . Most of what I do is surfacing so the software is useless . I emailed to ask about this and they told me it was in the plans , I also asked when it would be implemented and they never bothered to reply back . I like their hardware but the software isn't complete which is probably why it's being sold at 1/2 price
I've got mach3 tweaked fairly nicely and I haven't had much issue with it . My mills get a lot of hoursput on them each week . But , there are a few slight performance issues that I'd like to see improvements on , which is the only reason why i would change anything
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bad Wolf
Trying to workout if I stick with UCCNC or buy a new controller card and go to Mach4...
I did a few basic cutting comparisons between Mach3 and UCCNC and Mach3 seems to cut rounder holes and generally work better. As I am new CNCing I was wondering what others thought of UCCNC in a direct comparison to Mach3.
Looking for perceived or measurable differences between the two, and if one is favoured over the other based on performance rather than bias.
.................
....if you use the 4th axis (A-axis), then UCCNC is not for you. Contacted support and was told that to render it equal to Mach3's 4th axis support (speed) it was complicated and too time consuming. Bottom line observation was that there was no serious intention of correcting the speed issue and as such the 4th axis is not usable practically speaking - imho.
hope this helps...
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Ok some really good feed back, since I am new to the whole CNC gig, I should probably spend some more money on a new PMDX 422 breakout board and PMDX 407 for spindle control and go Mach4 as I do plan to use a 4th axis at a later date.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
I've been eyeballing pmdx and their products possibly look like a good fit but I have seen much feedback on their stuff . Prices aren't too bad
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Have just flicked them off an email to see if those two items are what they recommend for my configuration.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
the pdmx 422 has been built for M4 so it should do what you wont
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
There is no speed issue on the 4th axis, but the UCCNC does not support the radius based surface speed control for the 4th axis.
In other words this is not something to be corrected in the software, but to support this will be a further development and a new option to select...
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Basicly CAM softwares are capable to not generate G18 and G19 but to generate G1's instead. Since the UCCNC has a nice look ahead function that will work about the same as if the arcs on XZ and YZ was defined with G18/G19.
And as said the G18/G19 is on the todo list, but I can't tell you at the moment when it will be implemented.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dubble
Since the UCCNC has a nice look ahead function that will work about the same as if the arcs on XZ and YZ was defined with G18/G19.
.
It wouldn't have the same results on the finished product , short line segmented codes are extremely noticeable on metal . It might be fine on wood but certainly not on metal .
Besides the amount of code needed to create a clean arc with the use of line segments would be quite large vs a single line or two of code , I can't see how it would be near as efficient .
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dertsap
It wouldn't have the same results on the finished product , short line segmented codes are extremely noticeable on metal . It might be fine on wood but certainly not on metal .
Besides the amount of code needed to create a clean arc with the use of line segments would be quite large vs a single line or two of code , I can't see how it would be near as efficient .
the code for a line segments to do arc`s is massive and is very ugly I tried it ounces never again you can still see it in wood and you can hear it (it was not done with a UCCNC)
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
daniellyall
the pdmx 422 has been built for M4 so it should do what you wont
Yeah I know it will work with M4 as that was my original reason for looking them up, but since this is my first CNC I want to make sure I am covering all the bases when it comes to functionality. I don't want to assume it will do everything I want and find it doesn't, so I told them what I need and asked them to confirm it will do what am expecting. The DB25-1205 I bought in the original kit doesn't support spindle control, this is one of the things I want to work properly, start / stop, speed control, direction etc.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
How do you think a software generates an arc code? (Mach3, UCCNC etc.)
I tell you: It cuts the arc to small line segments for precalculation, then it creates time frames and speed informations and from this it generates the step signals.
The working like this is nessessary because the software works and have to work with external motion controllers and the trajectory planning in all these software are on the PC side...
The UCCNC has an advanced trajectory planner, so if there are enough line segments which shapes an arc then the result will be the same as if an arc is programmed.
The only difference will be that the G-code will be longer.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
This does not makes sense, except if you fragmented the arc with low resolution.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dubble
This does not makes sense, except if you fragmented the arc with low resolution.
was years ago with what was meant to be a top of the line cad program what put out lots of not so tiny lines, what i use now put out a small code that use`s arc`s yes it`s tiny lines but it has bugger all code so its faster, cleaner and very time saving.
dubble I am not saying anything about your controller never used it just saying about what I have used and use now so nothing on you.
Re: Honest Appraisal of UCCNC
daniellyall,
That's ok, I did not think you told anything about our controller. I was just telling my opinion on your comment based on my knowledge in this theme.
And yes, you are right about that the code is then much longer and more calculations are needed, but today's computers can handle it, they are fast enough to deal with the task.
The original post I was replying to was about that the UCCNC currently does not understand the G18/G19 codes which is true and I thought to share with your the workaround...