Game on!

[Neale]

That's pretty much what I mean by proper gantry squaring - the software understands the hardware configuration and does the right thing with both ends of the gantry. The main thing that prompted my question was that the previous post described very accurate mechanical squaring but I wasn't sure how that tied into the software-initiated homing which would be used for normal operation.

I've been using Mach3 for a few years now but I wasn't aware that it understood the concept of master-slave axes. I use Mach3 with a CSMIO-IP/M and it's the motion controller firmware that takes over the homing function from Mach3. Unfortunately that firmware does not include the ability to square a gantry during homing - in effect, it just runs both master and slave in synchronism and you have to find another way to square the gantry. In fact (as someone pointed out on this forum a while ago) you can go into the CSMIO config menu and disable slaving. I then use a specific homing macro that homes X and A simultaneously; both ends of the gantry move to their home position but you do need to separately adjust the two homing sensors so that the gantry is square when it is homed. Once homed, you reconfigure slaving and it all works fine from that point on. Assuming that you don't hit e-stop or that anything serious happens, the gantry retains its "squareness" for the rest of the session, even if rehomed the usual way.

However, you have made me think a little more about this, and I suspect that because I separate X and A for homing, I could use the Mach3 homing offset parameter on A to provide the squaring correction more easily than trying to tweak a proximity sensor. I'll look into that.

[Neale]

Every time I have to work around a deficiency in my setup I start reading the UCCNC manuals... I reckon that a UC300ETH/UB1 combination would be a drop-in replacement for my IP/M, which is a great piece of hardware let down by the software around it. I spotted that UCCNC does proper gantry squaring, although I haven't bothered to chase down exactly how. Would have to replace the MPG as well as I couldn't live without one of those.

Be interested to hear how you get on with UCCNC. At least it's a supported piece of software, unlike Mach3!

[AndyUK]

Be interested to hear how you get on with UCCNC. At least it's a supported piece of software, unlike Mach3!

This is what pushed me towards UCCNC rather than Mach3 - and the horror reports from Mach4.

I'm slightly worried however by the multiple updates to UCCNC which are released without any accompanying release notes or change history. :( Feels like the developers are starting to get into some bad habits.

[JAZZCNC]

Be interested to hear how you get on with UCCNC. At least it's a supported piece of software, unlike Mach3!

There will come a time when even UCCNC and older controllers will be unsupported as technology/software PC's etc moves on. This is basically what's happened to Mach3 along with Art fennerty selling the company to Brian who took a different approach to development and marketing, a wrong one IMO.
That said Mach3 is still a very capable piece of software and the Cslabs controllers are high quality. Cannot really blame Cslabs for Mach3 or for not developing for mach3 anymore and they do fully support Mach4 which I'm told is much more robust that it was and lot of the bugs have been ironed out.! . . .I'll have to maybe revisit it.? They also have there own software which is still a work in progress.

Also on a side note and in Mach3 defense and to some degree Cslabs regards MPG's. It's no surprise that some are having problems when using MPG's plug-ins from other company's with Cslabs controllers. They do offer an MPG module that works perfectly with the controller and obviously they are not going to help or support another company's products at the cost of not selling there own, who would.? This problem is not a mach3 problem, it's the controllers plug-in who is in charge.!

I'm slightly worried however by the multiple updates to UCCNC which are released without any accompanying release notes or change history. :( Feels like the developers are starting to get into some bad habits.

Why.? I don't get why people feel the need to update software just for updating sakes when they don't have any issues.! . . . . If it's working ok leave it alone.

[AndyUK]

Why.? I don't get why people feel the need to update software just for updating sakes when they don't have any issues.! . . . . If it's working ok leave it alone.

Well that's exactly my point. If I have an issue, I should be able to look through the release notes to see if its been addressed in a newer version. I shouldn't have to try pot-luck installs.

Maybe there's a new feature I really want? How would I know if there are no release notes...

Maybe I know there is a new feature, but they've removed some other functionality I use... again how do you know?

I've worked as a software engineer before, and release notes are a basic requirement for any quality product. It makes me worry what other shortcuts they're taking, which might not lead to problems right away, but a couple of years down the line could make a project unsustainable to work on, and means your code base becomes a buggy mess (which I gather is what happened to later versions of Mach3?)

[JAZZCNC]

Well that's exactly my point. If I have an issue, I should be able to look through the release notes to see if its been addressed in a newer version. I shouldn't have to try pot-luck installs.

Maybe there's a new feature I really want? How would I know if there are no release notes...

Maybe I know there is a new feature, but they've removed some other functionality I use... again how do you know?

Yes, Agree on that side of things your 100% correct regards release notes. I wasn't actually referring so much to that but rather peoples need to update for the sake of updating. Just don't get the need if things are working ok.!

[Voicecoil]

I wasn't actually referring so much to that but rather peoples need to update for the sake of updating. Just don't get the need if things are working ok.!

+1 Perhaps Microsoft (mighty offenders in this area) could do with some Yorkshire wisdom!

[paulus.v]

I still like the CSMIO IP-M with Mach3.

The real benefit of the controller support for axis slaving/homing (e.g IP-S) is homing on index. Homing on index has almost 100% accuracy/repeatability of homing/squaring as it doesn't rely on the sensors accuracy but you need motors with encoders, e.g servo drives with index pulse..

Otherwise I find the software homing/squaring quite reliable and do not see any real benefit for a homing sequence performed by the controller.

It is even possible to home on index with Mach3 with a simple macro. Not sure about gantry squaring on index but it may be doable as well.

[Voicecoil]

After much swearing at the rather arkward connector I've got the spindle installed

[JAZZCNC]

After much swearing at the rather arkward connector I've got the spindle installed

You might want to add strain relief to that, it's just a short circuit waiting to happen. Also not a good idea to pump heat into the wire which is what the water pipes will do, esp on long jobs.

Strange Z-axis design. Why did you feel the need to use 2 ball-screws and have the linear rails side-mounted.?