So, 2024, what's the controller market like?

[Chaz]

I'm just finishing a retrofit of a Triac. Used Acorn Centroid.

Previously I've used SZGH, CS LABS, Pokeys and various hardware on Mach 3 and Mach 4. I think I have a fair sense of what each offers.

I've skipped LinuxCNC. Familiar with Linux, its used widely in my IRL industry.

There are 2 systems catching my eye at the moment and I'm looking at a retrofit on a 5 Axis mill that I have recently bought which still uses an old Heidenhain TNC 407 controller.

The first is the Masso G5 Touch. It looks amazing, very professional and relatively simple to use. I do like the 'no PC' option. With SZGH for example, no PC, great, however not. Moving files onto it is a pain etc whereas Masso has an eco system for wifi / remote management etc. The downside, its expensive and there's little support. They have a forum, its not very active.

The 2nd is one of the older systems which Ive previously not looked at an that's UCCNC and the various controller boards. I avoided this mostly as I didnt want a less supported Mach 3 clone. That said, it may have been wrong. It looks decent, has great support. The various hardware is relatively affordable.

I do like Centroid. I'm struggling a bit with some PLC / Code for the Triac's ATC but will get there ... The 6 Axis Centroid card is expensive, so willing to look at the Masso but its really pricy. Do I save £1K and go for the UNCNC ecosystem?

This is a 5 Axis Bridgeport clone (Gate) machine with an A and C axis (Nikken).

Thanks.

[m_c]

For multi-axis, a key thing to look at is how tool offset compensation is handled.
Not all controllers can handle it for 4/5th axis, and rely on it being done in the CAM, which means that if you need to replace a tool/change offset, then you need to re-generate the code.

I know that Dynomotion's KMotionCNC requires re-compiling from source in order to handle it for each specific setup if you want to handle offsets in the controller, and not rely on CAM to generate the required G-code. (The reason given is there are many options for multi-axis, especially since Dynomotion can support lots of weird kinematics options, they opt to make it fully customisable in code, rather than try restrict options directly in the software)

As much as I've come to like standalone controllers, as I'm sure you're aware, when it comes to mills/routers doing complex work, program size can quickly exceed what standalone controllers can store.

[Chaz]

For multi-axis, a key thing to look at is how tool offset compensation is handled.
Not all controllers can handle it for 4/5th axis, and rely on it being done in the CAM, which means that if you need to replace a tool/change offset, then you need to re-generate the code.

I know that Dynomotion's KMotionCNC requires re-compiling from source in order to handle it for each specific setup if you want to handle offsets in the controller, and not rely on CAM to generate the required G-code. (The reason given is there are many options for multi-axis, especially since Dynomotion can support lots of weird kinematics options, they opt to make it fully customisable in code, rather than try restrict options directly in the software)

As much as I've come to like standalone controllers, as I'm sure you're aware, when it comes to mills/routers doing complex work, program size can quickly exceed what standalone controllers can store.

Thanks. Do you know offhand which of the controllers can manage the multi axis tool offsets without needing to regenerate code?

[Ats101]

For multi-axis, a key thing to look at is how tool offset compensation is handled.
Not all controllers can handle it for 4/5th axis, and rely on it being done in the CAM, which means that if you need to replace a tool/change offset, then you need to re-generate the code.

I know that Dynomotion's KMotionCNC requires re-compiling from source in order to handle it for each specific setup if you want to handle offsets in the controller, and not rely on CAM to generate the required G-code. (The reason given is there are many options for multi-axis, especially since Dynomotion can support lots of weird kinematics options, they opt to make it fully customisable in code, rather than try restrict options directly in the software)

As much as I've come to like standalone controllers, as I'm sure you're aware, when it comes to mills/routers doing complex work, program size can quickly exceed what standalone controllers can store.

This is very useful to know,

I am thinking about going down the UC300ETH-5LPT route for a 3 axis. I take it the UCCNC software can facilitate a fixed probe for ATC AND be able to compensate for difference between fixed probe height and spoil board/workpiece.

Thanks.

[m_c]

I honestly can't remember, as it's a good few years since I looked at it

I seem to have a vague recollection that Mach supports it, but that might only have been geometric correction.
My main interest was more curiosity, other than considering a standalone controller, which were quite limited unless you paid for the additional processing power to move multiple axes at the same time, but I never got as far as looking at if/how they handled tool offsets.