Uc300

[m_c]

Obviously, that depends on the machine in question. Configuration yes certainly every machine needs to be configured for it to work. But basic's like CSS and Ridgid tapping shouldn't require programming skills. Even providing examples isn't acceptable IMO it should be implemented as standard, esp for Lathe.

You don't really need programming skills though. You just need to copy and paste.

For Lathe, it doesn't really have any shortfalls, which is what Chaz asked about. So I have no problem recommending this controller/software.

The only other thing possibly is only having 16 x I/O but for Lathe, this is enough. For more industrial Lathe setup yes wouldn't be enough but it's not sold as an industrial controller. They have more expensive (stupidly expensive) ones for those machines.
Same goes for Mill really, Software is rock stable and works out the box for any DIY Mill. For more advanced Mill with advanced ATC etc then yes limited I/O isn't ideal but like said before there's ways around this.

16 IO would depend on the type of tool changer used. I know on my turret, it needs 6 inputs alone, along with 3 outputs. Combine with 2 homing switches and that's all the inputs gone. Now where do I connect the E-stop? Or as you've previously advocated, where do the limit switches go if you're not wiring them as part of the E-stop circuit?
And I'd love to know your way around the lack of IO?

PLC Ladder isn't the most intuitive language I agree but it's not rocket science either. Like I said above the Router setup isn't great and at the moment the way it handles tool changes doesn't suit routers at all. However, after only a few nights familiarising my self with Centroids PLC/Macros and ways of working I now have Macro which sets it up to work exactly has would like. And trust me I'm no programmer so can't be that hard.

Regards Python then I've used this before so holds no worries for me.

So what you're essentially saying is, you're happy to learn a language when it suits you, yet criticise others for using a different language when it doesn't suit you?
;)


FWIW I do think the Centroid software looks good, but I think the Acorn is just too restrictive for anything other than a basic machine and I think they could really do with something that sits in between their current offerings. But I'd just hope they don't put relays on it. That really is one of my pet annoyances. If I want a relay, DIN mounted relays come in various sizes, so I can pick the one most suitable for the load, and not be stuck with a one size fits all that will likely die because of switching too much or too little current.

[JAZZCNC]

And I'd love to know your way around the lack of IO?


So what you're essentially saying is, you're happy to learn a language when it suits you, yet criticise others for using a different language when it doesn't suit you?
;)

How do industrial machines control ATC's and other peripheral equipment.? PLC's

What I'm saying is I shouldn't need to have to learn any language or even use copy paste for basic features like CSS on lathe setup.

But you are correct we could argue until the cows come home but let me just point out this last thing.

Why is it many folks, including me, are now looking to jump ship from Mach3/4.? . . . Lack of Hardware or I/O isn't the problem in most cases and many, probably 80% + don't have large I/O needs.
It's the lack of software stability or support that's the problem and centroid offer Rock solid industrial strength software with a high-quality controller they support and backup 100%.
Yes, I agree more I/O would be welcome but only by probably 20% of folks at best. Which really probably 10% should be looking at more high-end controllers anyway but are too tight-arsed to spend the money.!

Remember it's called a DIY controller aimed at lower spec DIY machines.

The software is Key IMO and Rock solid stability and backup come at a price and in this case I don't think the price is that high if the I/O fits your needs.

Edit: For those with Routers then at the Minute I think the favorite or winning hardware/Software package is probably UCCNC. Unless Cslabs new software stacks up or develops fast enough. In which case then the Cslabs will win hands down because of it's hardware.

[Ger21]

Edit: For those with Routers then at the Minute I think the favorite or winning hardware/Software package is probably UCCNC. Unless Cslabs new software stacks up or develops fast enough. In which case then the Cslabs will win hands down because of it's hardware.

I think a UC300ETH on a UB1 breakout board compares pretty well to an IP-S, at about half the price when you include software. So I'm not sure CS Labs would be a hands down winner. At the end of the day, though, your right, it'll be all about the software.

[JAZZCNC]

I think a UC300ETH on a UB1 breakout board compares pretty well to an IP-S, at about half the price when you include software. So I'm not sure CS Labs would be a hands down winner. At the end of the day, though, your right, it'll be all about the software.

Well, can't argue really because I've not got UB1 Breakout board (yet) but it will have to be good to match or beat Cslabs. Again for me, it's not just about the cost. The fact Cslabs is Din rail mounted with quality wire Connectors inside nice neat box comes into the equation. But do recognise the cost difference comes into play.

[JAZZCNC]

Regards Acorn I've just found out Centroid are working on I/O card so lack of I/O shouldn't be a problem soon.

These guys don't mess around. They listen and act which in my book goes along way.