Unfortunately, it's very feature limited, and was never developed enough to make it usable for most people.Īfaik, there's a version of either GRBL, or one of the low cost maker controls (Tiny G? or Arduino?) that has S-Curve accel. There's an S-Curve test version of Mach3 called Tempest, and the S-Curve makes a night and day difference. Like Ted, S-Curve was very high on my list. Years of delays, and personal issues with the direction development took, led me to look for an alternative. When designing a new dual Z axis machine, my original plan was to use Mach4.
After that are the abilities to be able to customize programming for specific tasks that may not be doable via CAM software at this time. The basics are really important and IMHO those basics are acceleration and a healthy sized look ahead buffer. Just load the program, set the variables and go.įifth, if "macro B" is not implemented then some form of a scripting language written in a standard programming language like Visual Basic. It is easy to write a routine that has the user enter length, width, depth of cut, steps per pass, tool size, etc and the program will loop through the macro flattening the material. A very simple example is a face flattening routine. For those not familiar with "macro B" it is the ability to write gcode that uses loops, if-then statements, etc. Some of us are pretty skilled programmers having been in this stuff for ages. That has made all the difference in the world running Mach for me.įourth, what is commonly known as Macro B capability.
Then I stumbled across Gerry's Screenset 2010. When I started with Mach3 I really, REALLY did not like it. Third, the ability to customize the input screens.
That S curve was not a series of finite points that approximated a curve but an actual formula that described the curve and all the points on it. In my past experience my favorite was an S curve type of accel. I run Mach3, which is linear acceleration. Second, more pertinent information about how the controller handles accels/decels. Also for those of us that are more familiar with gcode it would allow us to do off axis cutting on the rotary. Eventually we all get the bug to do 4th axis work and having to switch plugs is not horrible but hey, we are talking about our dream controller. I am going to write mainly as a hobbyist.įirst off, I would like a control that handles 5 motors without kludging them together. Gary's point is well taken about how you will use the machine, as a hobbyist or commercially. So that makes it difficult to sort through the differences. Of course most of them have a huge commonality of features. I visited all the websites for the controllers you listed.
The question is an interesting one since most of us are on the outside looking in, or else we like our current system and well, figure it is just the best cause it works for us. Congrats on the machine Ed, that certainly is a step up from the Shark!!!!