Quote Originally Posted by Ger21 View Post
I can tell you exactly why.
1) The lack of a good, easy to connect breakout board.
With a KStep, all you need is a basic 26 pin IDC breakout board. You could say the same about some of the UCNC headers.
2) Having to write C programs.
Only if you want to do something non-standard.
As I said in my post, if all you want to use is the basic features, there is a C file you just need to link to, either via the Mach plugin, or via the KMotionCNC config page. In Mach3, all the inputs/outputs are configured like any other controller. KMotionCNC it depends on what you're wanting to do, but the new screen editor lets you assign inputs/outputs to buttons/leds, along with little C snippets to do what you want.
It's too complex for the average person to use, when there are simpler options that work just as well.

I have a friend that was fed up with Mach3's bugs, which constantly caused ruined parts for him.

He bought a KFlop, but didn't have time to install it.

I had him buy a UC100, which he could switch to by just plugging in the parallel cable, and he started using UCCNC until he had time to switch.
He also bought a second machine for his business, which already had a KFlop installed.

With the updates that UCCNC have made to their software over the last year, he now sees no reason to switch to the KFlop, and will be selling bioth of them and moving the second machine to UCCNC.
I'll agree that the KFlop can be complex, as ultimately it is a pretty high end controller with lots of capability that lots of users will never use, but it's only as complex as you want to make it.
.
I do find the programming thing a bit of strange argument, considering plenty people doing anything non-standard with Mach and even UCNC, are usually happy enough to learn enough of the required language to write Macros, but mention C, and they break out in a cold sweat!