Smooth Steppers are finally available in UK !

[rnr107]

Guys ! It was just information.... not the start of a comparison/ WAR? between Mach and CNCLinux .... :-)

What makes the EES attractive to me is the Ethernet port rather than Parallel port for 2 reasons:
1- My workshop is tiny (ask i2i is been there) therefor no space for a full size desktop... So I could use a mini PC, these do not come with Parallel ports...
2- The maximum length a parallel port cable can be is something like 3m before trouble... I would like to keep the PC away from the machine. CAT6 cable (Ethernet) give up to 100m.

Now if I could use CNCLinux with that, that would be the cherry on the top of the cake!

L.

[Ger21]

Just read through this, and wanted to point out some unfair comments.

The main advantage of LinuxCNC over Mach3 using a parallel port is it runs on a real time kernel. This ensures that the pulse output from the parallel port has priority over everything else on the computer, so you don't get the timing inaccuracies inherent to Mach3 from Windows interrupting. With LinuxCNC if the computer appears to 'freeze' the machine will still run happily, since it's prioritised over everything including the mouse/keyboard. No matter how much you disable things in Windows, remove programs or whatever fundamentally Mach3 is not real time so timing errors will exist.

99.9% of issues with Windows "interrupting" Mach3 are power saving features, which can easily be disabled in most cases. Often they can be disabled from the bios, and may not be Windows issues at all.

No matter how much you disable things in Windows, remove programs or whatever fundamentally Mach3 is not real time so timing errors will exist.

Mach3 actually controls Windows to a certain extent, to provide accurate timing. And because it's a buffered system, "real time" is not really an issue. Sure, it may prevent you from doing some things that Linux can do, but there are no timing errors as you claim.

'But I'm not a computer geek and it takes twenty thousand years to set up' I hear you cry! It really doesn't - the installation and setup process which apparently is such a huge barrier to many, is quicker, easier and more intuitive than windows/mach3. Owning a CNC machine makes you a geek to start with so it's too late for that anyway. In fact, the interface eliminates many human errors - I see countless problems from people setting the wrong value for steps/mm, whereas in linuxcnc, each pulley has its own textbox, meaning that you never have to do any fiddly arithmetic manually.

If you want to play that game, Mach3 will automatically set your steps/unit without entering anything but a measured distance. You don't even need to know what components your machine uses.

Another crucial disadvantage of Mach3, or rather windows is its inability to perform on low end computers - with some ebay sniping (gixen.com), it's possible to put together a low latency computer for less than £50, whereas with windows, if you want to get anywhere, you have to use a relatively expensive computer.

When Mach3 was originally developed (Mach3, not Mach1 or Mach2), 1.5Ghz PC's were state of the art. I run Mach3 on a $20 1Ghz PC with 512MB of RAM, and it runs great. I can buy PC's on Ebay all day long that will run Mach3 just fine for $50-$75. Including Windows XP

LinuxCNC also boasts superior stability. Windows is known for its tendency to crash for no good reason on mid to low end computers ...................................

Really??? Maybe if your running Windows 95. From Windows 2K on, Windows is extremely stable, and will usually only crash for two reasons. Faulty hardware (usually memory), or bad software (very rare). I haven't seen Windows crash in well over 10 years.

Look at what features come into play when a product is developed properly with the correct objective in mind - full support for helical arcs (allowing threadmilling).................................... ..............

MAch3 can do helical arcs and threadmilling too.

Mach3 runs on windows 2000 and windows XP. Both are in steady decline with windows vista, 7 and 8 being forced out by Microsoft.

Mach3 runs on Vista and Windows 7 as well as 2K and XP. It can't use the parallel port with Windows 8, though.

Ubuntu is made to be incredibly user friendly and simple (it's marketed at Apple users amongst others).

Apple users use whatever Apple feeds them. I can't see many apple users switching to Linux.

[motoxy]

Just out of curiosity are there many linuxcnc users out there? I always wanted to be a greek, warm sunny weather no taxes and retire at 25 and lots of poverty.
Bruce

[John S]

Just out of curiosity are there many linuxcnc users out there? I always wanted to be a greek, warm sunny weather no taxes and retire at 25 and lots of poverty.
Bruce

You don't need Linuxcnc, you need a Kebab shop.

[JAZZCNC]

I always wanted to be a greek, warm sunny weather no taxes and retire at 25 and lots of poverty.
Bruce

Your a Bit stuffed for the minimum retirement age bruce but the rest's Coming to a place near you soon .!! . . .This countrys FUBARD.!!

[John S]

There has been a recent thread over on the Yahoo forum DIY-CNC where a guy called Dan Maulch, well respected builder of CNC systems has been having problems getting a Gecko 540 to work with Linuxcnc. Also on the same forum of two of the Linuxcnc development team who also can't get this thing to work right.

What chance does the unwashed have, all three of these guys are more savvy than most of the people on here for starters.

Another point brought up is why if it's so good and successful it looks like a basic experiment as regards the screens.
Our Mach screens have everything, MDI, tool offsets, probe, 4th axis etc and large buttons for touch screens all on one screen, users do not need to move away from this screen.
You can easily zero any axis and jog away if you break a tool, change it and reset offsets and do a run from here.

Don't like our screens?, use someone elses or alter your own.

LinuxCNC screens are very lacking and even the developers are not prepared to make changes.

Mr Rolls and Mr Royce owned an engineering firm but I wouldn't class them as geeks would you ? They did the same as I do, put bolts into holes and wires into terminals we don't need to know how it all works.

[motoxy]

What do you mean, I am only 23 just had a hard life thats all. Opps thats nursey coming...night all

[Jonathan]

erm..Mach 4 is under (very) active development, and Mach 3 has been continually tweeked(sic).

I'm sure Mach 4 will be a huge improvement on Mach 3, but I don't see how it's possible for Art to deal with the issues that Windows has. Fair enough, he's a good developer, but he's limited by the platform he's working on and that's a huge factor that's well beyond his control. I might be the world's best Aerospace engineer, but if I'm only given playdough to work with, then no matter how much effort I go to, it's impossible for me to make a good plane.

Still can't handle anything without a parallel port though ;)

This issue has been done to death: It's not a case of "can't" it's a case of "doesn't want to" - LinuxCNC revolves around a very versatile and well developed core which runs on a computer. As soon as you use something other than the parallel port, to maintain realtime you need to decode the GCode outside the computer, essentially you need to outsource the controller to an outside box. You will never be able to have as good a controller running on a microcontroller/FPGA than on a computer (some industrial controllers do it, but check out the cost) and that's why linuxCNC developers insist on keeping the controller within the computer. The decision is there with good reason and I agree with it.

Now for most users, are they going to go with the more familiar, or less familiar option?

You've missed out a lot of rather critical factors there, so that's a bit of a misleading question. Let's compare the two options properly? For arguments sake I'm going to assume you already have a computer and that we've bought a low latency PCI Parallel port card for it because they're £6 from eBay.


Mach/SS:
Pros: Familiar, DIY standard.
Cons: Doesn't support some obscure machines/extras.
Cost: Windows >£50, Mach3 >£50, Smoothstepper about £150, Total:>£250
What you have to lose if you want to switch to the alternative: A few hours of your time, >£250.


LinuxCNC:
Pros: Supports everything. Runs well on old computers. Extremely customizable.
Cons: Unfamiliar software environment. Doesn't support things without a Parallel port.
Cost: N/A
What you have to lose if you want to switch to the alternative: A few hours of your time.


Now if the 'unfamiliar software environment' is so scary to 'most users' that they're not willing to even try it before spending hundreds of pounds, then my advice to them is firstly to educate themselves (that's what the forums are for) and secondly to deal with that irrational fear of the unknown.

Little Known is the fact Emc owe's much to Art and his knowledge of the PP and indeed use's some of his code.

I did some more research and found the following things: EMC was first developed by NIST in 1993 and released 'around 2000' while Artsoft went into business in 2001. The only links I found indicate that Mach borrowed from EMC and not the other way around (people love to jump to conclusions, I *AM NOT* saying there's anything wrong with this). If anyone has more info please do let me know:
"This software[Mach] is derived from the EMC software from NIST and expands on the good features of EMC."
http://www.pmdx.com/Resources
"Yes, and we could also convert EMC into Mach. That's what Art Fenerty did some years ago, we mostly wished him well, but we had specific and we feel QUITE valid reasons for staying with the real-time servo model."
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.lin...emc.devel/2006

So I could use a mini PC, these do not come with Parallel ports...

They most certainly do, there are plenty with parallel ports. Even if there weren't you would be able build one cheaply as I suggested above. If you want some guarantee of good performance then get one of the good ones from the list I posted earlier. The intel Atoms are popular and have good latency.

I would like to keep the PC away from the machine

You have a number of options:
1) TRY a shielded 10m parallel cable, it may well work with no problems and it's not particularly expensive from eBay.
2) Extend your stepper cables, they can be extended as much as you need although the cable is about £1.20 per meter per motor.
3) Get a wireless mouse and keyboard and extend the monitor into another room, unless you literally don't have space for the PC in which case disregard this option

Jonathan I find it very Sad that you've gone to all the trouble of traweling thru old posts

I've not trawled through anything. I remember most things that are said to me, particularly insults so I did one google search. The post which your reply referred started with "As far as I'm aware", no assumptions, just a hypothesis, yet you chose to reply in an extremely aggressive way anyway. It's perfectly in context.

With the Know-it-all arrogance that comes with youth

So you're basically trying to take the moral high ground by saying I'm wrong because I'm young? Or because you think I'm not allowed to have an opinion until I've seen the smoothstepper in action? I disagree: you might not believe in theory and prediction but I do. If you don't trust your logical deduction and common sense when predicting things, fair enough. Don't try to stop me voicing mine (or do, I honestly don't care). You might want to have a read of this page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

so they call it a day cut there loses never to return going back to the potting shed

And nothing of value was lost. I would much prefer quality over quantity in the community. If they choose to give up without even asking a question or two on the forums, then I'm not lowering my standards to their level just so they grace the community with their presence. I'm there to provide support to anyone who asks for it, and my conscience is clear. In my opinion, if you have a problem with being a geek, DIY CNC isn't the right hobby for you. If anything I think the fact that LinuxCNC is free attracts newbies because they don't have to commit to buying a mach license to try all but the simplest code, like in this thread for example:
http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/arc...p/t-46797.html

Apparently people are under the impression I have a problem with Art or Artsoft. If my previous posts gave that impression, then it wasn't intentional. I'm sure Art is a great guy and he's done a lot for the community. I never disputed that.

[John S]

Just spoke to Art on the phone today.
I pointed him to this thread.

Oh how we chucked and rolled all over the floor with mirth.

BTW he's been retired from Artsoft for 3 years now, sold out to Brian Barker and Scott Nichols.
If you had gone to the Midlands show three years ago they were all there. They let wheelchairs in so they should be OK with prams.

[m_c]

Jonathan, you're naive, and very stereotypically geeky with being unable to comprehend how the average user thinks, plus you need to stop making assumptions about the original posters requirements/decisions.


If you ask your average user to install a new program on windows, the majority would manage it with minimal hassle, as the process is familiar.
Now ask them to install a completely new OS, and install a new program on it. Most will fall at the first hurdle. Some will battle on and manage it, but lots will just give up, or not even try.
You might think that you can 'educate' them, but most won't try. For those who want 'educated' kudos to you for doing it.

However, Mach allows those who don't want to deal with learning a new OS to get a functioning machine, and without any expense. Remember Mach without a license isn't that handicapped.
Mach also has proper support. If you have a problem, you can actually email or phone somebody for help, not just rely on a community for help, and that is very valuable to people.

I'll admit I've not looked at EMC/LinuxCNC for a while, but I'd doubt the support community is as large as the combined Mach Support forum, and Yahoo Group.

You've missed out a lot of rather critical factors there, so that's a bit of a misleading question. Let's compare the two options properly? For arguments sake I'm going to assume you already have a computer and that we've bought a low latency PCI Parallel port card for it because they're £6 from eBay.


Mach/SS:
Pros: Familiar, DIY standard.
Cons: Doesn't support some obscure machines/extras.
Cost: Windows >£50, Mach3 >£50, Smoothstepper about £150, Total:>£250
What you have to lose if you want to switch to the alternative: A few hours of your time, >£250.

Sorry to be pedantic, but if you're wanting to compare Mach to LinuxCNC, you won't be needing a SS ;-)
Plus what's the chances of any computer not coming with Windows?




Now to give a real example. I'm needing a way to program some ATmega chips.
Now I could be a tight arse, and build a programmer using one of the Arduinos I've got kicking around or buy a cheap programmer clone, then spend time getting it to work doing what I need it to, relying on lesser used programs and internet support for any issues, or I can spend the extra £30-40 on a genuine programmer, which will work out the box in a better supported program, and comes with access to proper support from the manufacturer should anything go wrong.

I've got to have this project done for the middle of next month, while doing a full time job, managing the timing for a 6 hour race this weekend, providing timing for two evening races the next week, and helping to build a race course for a major european race the middle of next month. Now what one is the better option?