new to cnc
04 Oct 2011 12:56 #13644
by tjfisher
new to cnc was created by tjfisher
ok so here we go
just about to finish basic set up on my hand build desktop mill, now question is what software to run???"?
ok so i have ran motion for testing with mach3 its nice but pricey ,i like the freeware concept to but kinda hesitaing![:( :(](/media/kunena/emoticons/sad.png)
can someone give me a kinda pros and cons so i can stop tossing this back and forth
ill host pic's when i get some time
just about to finish basic set up on my hand build desktop mill, now question is what software to run???"?
ok so i have ran motion for testing with mach3 its nice but pricey ,i like the freeware concept to but kinda hesitaing
![:( :(](/media/kunena/emoticons/sad.png)
can someone give me a kinda pros and cons so i can stop tossing this back and forth
ill host pic's when i get some time
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
04 Oct 2011 13:32 #13646
by BigJohnT
Replied by BigJohnT on topic Re:new to cnc
Well you must know what kind of answer you will get to that question on the EMC forum...
EMC is the most cost effective software for CNC you can find and is the most advanced.
If you "have" to keep windows and have money to waste and don't want to thread or rigid tap or use servos and are scared of Ubuntu and want to pay for custom screens and the list goes on... you might want Mack.
I've been there done that... for a few minutes and came running back here.
Assuming you have steppers and want to use software step generation then download the LiveCD and boot up your computer on it and do a latency test... and no, laptops won't work with CNC.
John
EMC is the most cost effective software for CNC you can find and is the most advanced.
If you "have" to keep windows and have money to waste and don't want to thread or rigid tap or use servos and are scared of Ubuntu and want to pay for custom screens and the list goes on... you might want Mack.
I've been there done that... for a few minutes and came running back here.
Assuming you have steppers and want to use software step generation then download the LiveCD and boot up your computer on it and do a latency test... and no, laptops won't work with CNC.
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
04 Oct 2011 13:58 #13648
by andypugh
Replied by andypugh on topic Re:new to cnc
tjfisher wrote:
I will try to be unbiased, but the very fact that I am so deeply involved in the EMC2 project is a clue as to what my opinion is.
The difference is a bit like the difference between Windows and Linux themselves. Mach3 is probably easier to set up, and if it does what you want out-of-the box is a good choice. EMC2 has the stepconf wizard which makes initial setup straightforward, but if you want to get under the skin to configure unusual things then it rapidly gets fairly complex.
However, you _can_ get at the underlying layers, and this makes EMC2 a lot more flexible. You have complete control over where the inputs and outputs get routed, and you can fiddle with them and combine them in any way you want inside HAL. The drawback is that HAL is fairly daunting when you first start with it. (Many users never need to or want to, though, and just work with the Wizards)
On an even deeper level, if you want to add a feature to EMC2, or don't like the way something is done, you can change it. Or you can persuade somebody else to change it for you if programming isn't your thing. The whole source code is there to be seen and modified.
EMC2 supports a wider range of hardware, but it does not support any USB hardware (with the exception of manual input devices like gamepads, keyboards, jogwheels etc). Mach3 plays well with USB devices like Smoothstepper.
However the range of PCI, ISA and Parallel port hardware supported is large:
wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?EMC2_Supported_Hardware
It is not all that difficult to add support for other hardware too, the interfaces are all open, and there are tools to simplify the process. There are a couple of cards that I have written drivers for without ever seeing them.
If you want to run closed-loop servo control (not step-control open-loop servo) then EMC2 is the only choice (between the two options under consideration). Similarly if you want to run an unusual kinematics (robot arm, tetrapod etc).
I don't know how good the Mach3 support for Lathes is, it used to be a bit flaky but might well have improved.
There is a lot of user support for Mach3. Probably more than for EMC2. I can make no comment on the quality of that support.
can someone give me a kinda pros and cons so i can stop tossing this back and forth
ill host pic's when i get some time
I will try to be unbiased, but the very fact that I am so deeply involved in the EMC2 project is a clue as to what my opinion is.
The difference is a bit like the difference between Windows and Linux themselves. Mach3 is probably easier to set up, and if it does what you want out-of-the box is a good choice. EMC2 has the stepconf wizard which makes initial setup straightforward, but if you want to get under the skin to configure unusual things then it rapidly gets fairly complex.
However, you _can_ get at the underlying layers, and this makes EMC2 a lot more flexible. You have complete control over where the inputs and outputs get routed, and you can fiddle with them and combine them in any way you want inside HAL. The drawback is that HAL is fairly daunting when you first start with it. (Many users never need to or want to, though, and just work with the Wizards)
On an even deeper level, if you want to add a feature to EMC2, or don't like the way something is done, you can change it. Or you can persuade somebody else to change it for you if programming isn't your thing. The whole source code is there to be seen and modified.
EMC2 supports a wider range of hardware, but it does not support any USB hardware (with the exception of manual input devices like gamepads, keyboards, jogwheels etc). Mach3 plays well with USB devices like Smoothstepper.
However the range of PCI, ISA and Parallel port hardware supported is large:
wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?EMC2_Supported_Hardware
It is not all that difficult to add support for other hardware too, the interfaces are all open, and there are tools to simplify the process. There are a couple of cards that I have written drivers for without ever seeing them.
If you want to run closed-loop servo control (not step-control open-loop servo) then EMC2 is the only choice (between the two options under consideration). Similarly if you want to run an unusual kinematics (robot arm, tetrapod etc).
I don't know how good the Mach3 support for Lathes is, it used to be a bit flaky but might well have improved.
There is a lot of user support for Mach3. Probably more than for EMC2. I can make no comment on the quality of that support.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
04 Oct 2011 15:34 #13650
by tjfisher
Replied by tjfisher on topic Re:new to cnc
Well support for Mach is weak if you ask me but good if you want to pay for it lol , I want to learn more on both ubuntu and emc2 !! As for my machine it's ran with 3axis stepper with a probotix breakout and drivers . Otherwise it's all hand built out of 80/20 extrusions . I know i would get a sting favor to the emc2 due to the forum I'm asking lol but that's one way to get a 100% how you feel and what you like about it and the fact that you have both sides ( programers and users ) is awesome that's why I'm leaning to it . I build my mill instead of buying it cause I like to tinker and learn so Linux and emc would be a good choice
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
04 Oct 2011 15:54 #13651
by cncbasher
Replied by cncbasher on topic Re:new to cnc
if you already have it working under Mach3 then configuring for EMC should only take you 15 mins , then you can find out the advantage first hand , but to answer your question , i'll second AndyPugh
once you use EMC theirs no going back !
once you use EMC theirs no going back !
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.116 seconds