[HawkJET]

I hope that mach4 is more stable than mach3

Keep in mind, the VAST majority of MACH3 users have zero "stability" problems. So it is VERY likely that you only know it MAY be unstable for you because only a small percentage of people have (and the bad press is overblown). You will probably be one of the vast majority that it works fine for. There is no real need to concern yourself with "stability" at this point. There are a lot more likely areas that you will have problems.

Also, the mindset that MACH3 is "unstable" will distract during troubleshooting and can sidetrack you from finding a problem that is unrelated to "stability".

MACH3 is NOT "unstable" for me, and it's highly likely it will be the same for you.

[LeeWay]

Keep in mind, the VAST majority of MACH3 users have zero "stability" problems. So it is VERY likely that you only know it MAY be unstable for you because only a small percentage of people have (and the bad press is overblown). You will probably be one of the vast majority that it works fine for. There is no real need to concern yourself with "stability" at this point. There are a lot more likely areas that you will have problems.

Also, the mindset that MACH3 is "unstable" will distract during troubleshooting and can sidetrack you from finding a problem that is unrelated to "stability".

MACH3 is NOT "unstable" for me, and it's highly likely it will be the same for you.

You may have to try different versions of Mach 3 to get one that works as it should. I recently went through this and found a perfect version. Zero issues at all.

[HawkJET]

You may have to try different versions of Mach 3 to get one that works as it should. I recently went through this and found a perfect version. Zero issues at all.

Please share with us which version you ended up with....

Also, did you use any particular testing protocol to determine which was best?

[eman5oh]

Glad I stumbled across this thread. I was unaware of gmoccapy gui for Linux CNC. I have been a long time Mach user and have been wanting to give Linux CNC a try on a router I am building. I don't have the control hardware as of yet may try this out. It is not that I am unhappy with Mach, just I would like to give the other side a try again. Long long ago I had a working linux emc set up and ended up going to Mach because it was easier to get things like and pendent running at the time. I now have a kflop running with Mach and that controler is great and very powerful, but takes some time to get set up and running with your machine but I am very comfortable with motion control these days and do a bit of programming. Can someone that runs linux cnc tell me if anything like the Mach 3 offsets screen with the edge finder function exists? It may seem petty but it is one of the reasons I stay on Mach.

[kvom]

I got my NM200 in 2008, and any problems I've had could be traced to the older BoB card. Even that was a minor annoyance, although for a production shop it would have been more of an issue.

[LeeWay]

I had version 3.043.067 installed in the Pulsar and found that it would not home the machine correctly.Then I installed version 3.043.022. It homed okay, but would not run the spindle.
Then I tried 3.043.066. It does everything correctly. Apparently some have issues with that version, but I cannot find any fault with it.

[HawkJET]

Good info Lee.

I had version 3.043.067 installed in the Pulsar and found that it would not home the machine correctly

I am assuming you mean 3.043.057 since there is no 3.043.067.
3.043.066 is the highest it goes on the FTP site.

[LeeWay]

I could have sworn it was 67. Now I am confused, but whichever one it was, it would not home correctly. 66 does.

Okay, I just found that copy and it is version 3.043.067.

http://thesharkguard.com/pdf/Mach3Version3.043.067.zip

[SCzEngrgGroup]

I could have sworn it was 67. Now I am confused, but whichever one it was, it would not home correctly. 66 does.

Okay, I just found that copy and it is version 3.043.067.

http://thesharkguard.com/pdf/Mach3Version3.043.067.zip

That's interesting, since, as Cris indicated, there IS no version 3.043.067....

Regards,
Ray L.

[LeeWay]

Apparently there is or was. I had to have downloaded it at some point from the Mach 3 site. They certainly may have removed it because it doesn't home right. I put a zipped copy of it up on my site.

[RCaffin]

Such passion! Such fervour! Amazing stuff.

Mach3 vs LinuxCNC vs ...
Windows vs Linux vs OS2 vs ...
See any similarities? Well, I can.

Yes, Mach3 has deep architectual bugs in obscure parts of the code. That's why they are rewriting Mach4 from scratch.
Yes, the parallel port is a dinosaur. Actually, it's worse than that: you should see the internals of the stone-age chip it was based on.
Yes, the USB Smooth Stepper can fault on some machines due to noise. That's why we have moved to the Ethernet SS.

But yes, there are thousands of hobby users running Mach3 happily, and hundred of commercial users doing so too. So why is there so much screaming about how terrible Mach3 is? Ah well, there is a very good reason. If you can call it a 'reason'.

Ever looked to see what's on the majority of Windows bulletin boards? Novices, thousands of them, all complaining about the same problems.
Now look at the majorty of Mach3 bulletin boards. Exactly the same thing: lots of novices who can't get their machnes to work. Now ask yourself why they can't.

In 99.99% of the cases, it is because the novices have no knowledge of engineering, no knowledge of electronics, and no knowledge of CNC. But they want to put together a Chinese CNC kit and 'make things'. Often, using a pirate copy of Mach3. No, I am not being nasty about them. This is reality. Read the pleas for help, and the answers some very dedicated people keep providing. But we get the same questions and problems, week after week.

I did actually give up on one guy who was advised to go and read the manuals, but replied that he didn't want to waste his time with all that stuff, he just wanted to make things... and why wouldn't it work??? He wanted a magic solution.

Sigh.
Cheers

[MBViklund]

Well since I started this thread I have recieved my mill and been running it with mach3. The mill was already set up with mach when it was delivered from Novakon. Unmodified mach3 is really a pain in the b**hole. Hard to find the buttons and hard to find documentation for what the buttons do and what settings affect what. Then i came across MachSTDmill. This screenset really changes mach3 from being hard to use to easy to use. Not everything is straight forward but the 300 page manual with examples is there to back you if there is something you don´t get.

I have to little experience from mach3 to say whether or not it is full of bugs. It could be user errors but the machine have done things not expected by me a few times.

Any how I will continue using mach3 for now. I will definitely try mach4 when drivers are available and it has been tried by somebody with a little bit better understanding of electronics and programming than me.

[G59]

Mach3 and LinuxCNC in my opinion, are hobbyware.

I mean what do you expect from software that seemingly does everything. 3,4,5,6 axis and be great at doing them all?
Come on, get real guys.

If you are going to use your New machine for commercial purposes, then invest in real software specific to your needs.

Mach3 has an overly crowded UI, if all you have is a 3 axis mill.
Linux is just plain confusing to me. If it works well for some, then great.

My suggestion, use what came with the machine until you are comfortable with it. If this is for hobby use, it will prolly be good enough.

Personally, you can't beat software that was specifically written for the intended purpose or machine.

Having run "real" machines ie Haas, Brother etc.... the ui and motion controls are matched to perform exceptionally well for that specific machine.

So I think you should run what you already have. When you realize any shortfalls with the software, don't bother with Linux, as it is basically same as mach, get yourself Flashcut and be done with it.

[kvom]

I got my NM200 in 2009 and have been running the same version of Mach3 ever since. I know where all the buttons I need are and am now set in my ways apparently. There are a few things I don't like (such as no jogging in toolpatgh window) but nothing that keeps me from making my 1-off model parts. If I were a production shop I'd get a probe and TTS holders and the MSM screenset.

[MBViklund]

I got my NM200 in 2009 and have been running the same version of Mach3 ever since. I know where all the buttons I need are and am now set in my ways apparently. There are a few things I don't like (such as no jogging in toolpatgh window) but nothing that keeps me from making my 1-off model parts. If I were a production shop I'd get a probe and TTS holders and the MSM screenset.

I'd say it is well worth the investment to get tormach tool holders. The copies are not even expensive you probably get 10 for $400 MSM is $70 a probe $100. 500-600$ is nothing compared to what you spent in the machine. And it is well worth it even if you are only doing one of parts. I'd say it is even more worth it then because you have to reset the jobs all the time. :-) I'm not aiming towards making allot of the same parts either. I want to do one off parts. That is where I can compete with the guys running big expensive machines.

[RCaffin]

I will definitely try mach4 when drivers are available and it has been tried by somebody with a little bit better understanding of electronics and programming than me.

Chuckle - and some of us with a lot of knowledge of electronics and CNC programming are thinking exactly the same. But, current progress tells us it WILL get there in the not too distant future.

Cheers

[RCaffin]

I'm just a hobbyist, but

> The copies are not even expensive you probably get 10 for $400
I would probably need about 20, what with handling both imperial and metric.
And I would need either a PDB or a step ladder. For me, ER collets (kept clean etc) are very satisfactory.

> a probe $100
I have a touch probe (several) and a ZTO. They work very well, but I find a mechanical wiggler and a feeler gauge much faster and much less crash prone, while being accurate to 5 microns. That's enough for me. OK, I have used the touch probe in Z axis mode for scanning a few things - like the surface of the mill table itself! (It was tilted on the X axis, but a single bit of Al cooking foil (ahem - precision shim) in the right place solved that.)

> 500-600$ is nothing compared to what you spent in the machine.
For a commercial user, maybe. Hobbyists have a different budget.

Cheers
Roger

[bhurts]

I see a lot of posts stating that usb is unreliable. Not just for some people but just plain unreliable. I use k-flop and do not find this to be the case. I have never had any issues with it being usb. It is dead reliable 100% of the time. I also notice that I haven't seen anyone posting any usb issues with k-flop. Maybe were all just lucky but I suspect usb is just fine for this setup. The only usb controller issues I have seen are in regards to the smoothstepper.

Ben

[SCzEngrgGroup]

I see a lot of posts stating that usb is unreliable. Not just for some people but just plain unreliable. I use k-flop and do not find this to be the case. I have never had any issues with it being usb. It is dead reliable 100% of the time. I also notice that I haven't seen anyone posting any usb issues with k-flop. Maybe were all just lucky but I suspect usb is just fine for this setup. The only usb controller issues I have seen are in regards to the smoothstepper.

Ben

Ditto. I've been running KFlop for 3 years, on two machines. Never so much as a hiccup. The SmoothStepper seems to have some reliability problems with USB, but the KFlop is rock solid.

Regards,
Ray L.

[RCaffin]

Gee, it seems so easy to stir things up, doesn't it? Some of the replies sound a bit defensive though.

USB: I am willing to believe that some USB-based systems work. There will be errors due to noise, but SMART software can correct for erros. The FTDI chip does not have error-correcting smart SW, and this may be much of the problem. Fair enough.

> Mach3 and LinuxCNC in my opinion, are hobbyware.
Correct. That's where they started. But commercial users are starting to use them to make a living.
Have you ever noticed that so many things which start out as 'hobby-ware' end up displacing the 'professional' stuff in due course. I could cite the PC overtaking the mini-computer as an obvious example. Pity they never rewrote the core of Windows though - a real pity. But they are rewriting Mach4. And how many cars have a throttle retard lever these days?

> what do you expect from software that seemingly does everything. 3,4,5,6 axis and be great at doing them all?
Quite a lot, actually. And it delivers - for a reason.
With the older style of controllers (ie big boxes with lots of PCBs and hundred of buttons), adding a synchronised 4th axis means adding a lot of electronics, and it works out expensive. To add a 4th axis to a small HAAS seems to cost about $1.3k.
But when it is done in SW on a modern PC, synchronising 6 axes is just the same as sync'ing 3 axes. Yes, literally. Adding a 4th axis to a Mach machine costs ... well, zero $ (apart from the power amp or stepper driver). OK, it actually costs me about $1 worth of wire for the hook-up. Literally - I have just done it.

> Mach3 has an overly crowded UI, if all you have is a 3 axis mill.
Possibly. Perhaps.
But unlike the enormously complex front panels you get on dinosaur controllers, the screen on Mach is infinitely tunable. If there's stuff you don't need, you can remove it. If there are things you need that aren't there, you can add them. Useful. If you can't be bothered, no sweat. I will add that you can get a whole range of alternate screens, many of them free.

> you can't beat software that was specifically written for the intended purpose or machine
Oh, I agree. But then, both Mach and EMC2 and ... were 'specifically written for the intended purpose' of controlling a CNC.

Hi Chris
> Gee, I SEE pricing shown... They show ranges for each different class.
OK, so where are they? URL please! I would love to see them.
Contrary to what you might think, I am NOT wedded to any one SW package, although I would certainly prefer that it be able to talk to MY hardware via MY Ethernet SS. The box is built, after all.

Cheers
Roger