I disagree... strongly ... on the inference that is is somehow "only me"..
A default mach3 install can do all I mentioned, given 2 parallel ports for outputs.

UCCNC has itīs own set of issues, which I cannot properly debate since I do no use it, but are quite well documented by many users.
So does, honestly, to an extent, every motion controller for mach3, mach4 afaik.
So does linuxcnc / galil etc.

And as you well said, and I agree completely, a lot of stuff is relegated to the motion controller in machx, and in linuxcnc, and in uccnc.
Probing, homing, axis slaving, threading, feedhold-pause, mpgs come to mind.

My machine pauses in 1 ms to feedhold.
Probing is at 4 Mhz.
Threading is done at 4 Mhz - or whatever your hw supports.
MPGs track at hw rate - as good as the Haas machines I used to sell, 65 per year.
Homing is done at 4 Mhz.
Any axis can home on the servo index signal Z, Z/.

Fast feedhold, hires homing, hw threading (with Mhz servo rates), hw MPGs, servo index homing are all std features every controller should support, and most-all users want.
As well as fast responsive hw-rate FRO or Feed Rate Override, Spindle speed override.

It also tracks spindle/axis positions at 4 Mhz on full a,b,z encoders from servos for threading, differential signals preferred but optional.

The most important and useful things are MPGs, fast feedhold, FRO/SSO and high step rates to approx 256 kHz or up.
Imho. Ime.
The excellent cheap Pokeys will only do 125 kHz, 4 axis on Mach3, 6 axis iirc on Mach4 at 125 kHz.

How fast does UCCNC pause ? Probe ? Home ? max step rate ? Slaving ? MPGs (how many ? what rate ?) ? Threading with servos (how fast) ?
Multiple spindles on lathe ?
Spindle gearing with servos ?

Edit:
Some of the stuff seems pretty up-to-date from their web page. 400 kHz is fine for speeds.

DOCs from UCCNS are weak ...
but so is everyone elses docs in general.

No detailed info on hw speed/latency/jitter, pulse rates, accuracy, or almost any details.
No info on corner following / tracking, which is a 5-7-stage matrix with tool life, acceleration, speed, accuracy, etc. in the mix.


I am only pointing out actual missing info, specs, lack of functionality or documentation.
Lack of working demos showing this stuff working on machines. Etc..

I have nothing against UCCNC, and they may become good/great over time.

But 95% of the "good" commercial stuff is still missing, and will be, likely forever.
This may not matter in fact !

It is perfectly possible they are successful with a subset of features appropriate for basic 3(-6)-axis machines, of std use.

Just please, DO NOT toot them as "advanced" or "good" or "more advanced" when they are nothing of the sort vs Machx.
Today.
The thing is, gcode-generic-cnc is very complex, once You get into it.


Quote Originally Posted by Ger21 View Post
Fortunately, nobody else has machines like you, which need all of these advanced features that are required by only you.

And many of the features you mention are motion controller specific, and not necessarily native to Mach3. A default Mach3 install with a parallel port can't do most of what you mentioned.

Number of users is a meaningless stat. So what if more people are using an inferior product? How is that a benefit?
UCCNC is every bit as customizeable as Mach3, and is probably easier to customize. It also supports scaling. And afaik, doesn't suffer from the many bugs that Mach3 has when using offsets.