G-Code record

[timo_gross]

Mach3 has not been supported for quite a few years now. That doesn't mean that it suddenly stops working, of course, but as already said it will not run with W10. One reason is that newer PCs just do not have parallel ports (and again, as already said, USB to parallel "converters" mess up pulse timing and are not usable in this situation). The other reason is that the Mach3 parallel port driver is 32-bit only and does not work with W10 64-bit, even if installed on a motherboard with a parallel port.

Probably the easiest way to sort this is by using something like the UC100 device from CNCdrive. This looks a bit like a USB-parallel port adapter but is actually much more sophisticated as it offloads a lot of the pulse generation and timing functions from the PC which can improve overall performance. It only needs a USB port on the PC, and has a parallel port socket into which your existing cable will plug. CNCdrive provide a plug-in that works with Mach3; install that and the UC100 and you're ready to go. You might need a little tweak to the Mach3 settings, and you might even be able to squeeze a bit more speed and/or acceleration out of it, although that is more likely to be relevant with a CNC router than a mill.

One important thing to remember is that the KX1 and similar machines don't use anything exotic by way of electronics on the CNC side. It's mainly standard bits and pieces. That means that you don't necessarily have to replace any one item with an exact replacement; there is probably a newer, cheaper, and probably better-performing equivalent available.

Hello,

until I realized that I could simply plug an additional parallel port card into vintage computer boxes that do not have a built in Parallel port.....
Not working for small computers that do not have PCI slots.
Running Linux cnc without additional hardware is similar problematic as Mach3. Or similar easy.

A Linux CNC with Mesa card will be my goto solution if the Mach3 system has its next nervous break down. This happens quite often, to be fair not Mach3 related. Windows, old electronics, worn out contacts, corrosion and sloppy wiring provided enough defects .

I converted one Mach3 machine into a Frankenstein-monster using Linux CNC. It uses the old parallel port for the movement of the machine, that way I could leave the existing parts of the machine untouched (no documentation). Adding a Mesa hardware solved all the issues for the new features. e.g. the machine has a hard wired MPG (hand wheel) now.
The Mesa card uses a Parallelport cable, but it is not really the same as a parallel port.

 

[nealeb]

Yep, PCI parallel port adapter can work. I gather that they can be a bit variable and may or may not work with Windows/Mach3 but it's a cheap enough thing to try. In fact, I did this quite a few years back with an old PC with no parallel port, although I was actually running LinuxCNC at that point.

The main reason I moved away from LinuxCNC was that if you want to use an external motion controller, that pretty much comes down to Mesa, and it can involve a bit of tweaking and configuring. When I built a Mk2 router, I went to Mach3 but because of lack of support and lack of some specific features I needed, I went to an ET6 motion controller and its MyCNC software (comes from a Canadian company). My mill is a European-built Wabeco machine but the CNC electronics were added by a US company, hence Mach3, Ethernet SmoothStepper, and Clearpath servos. The servos are great but the Mach3/ESS combination was a bit flaky with frequent comms issues so now replaced with a UC300 and the UCCNC software which have the advantage of coming from the same company, so better support and compatibility.

Is any of this particularly relevant to the original post? Well, in a way, as moving away from parallel port to an external motion controller can improve performance, especially for high-detail 3D machining, as the whole trajectory planning thing can be more effective. Plus the more sophisticated S-curve acceleration which lets you squeeze a bit more speed out of the machine. In the end, it comes down to whether you want something plug-and-play but at a bit more cost, or LinuxCNC which will do all the same things but might well involve more under-the-covers configuration and general learning - but at lower cost! Although my own background is IT and electronics, I have to say that in this area, I've gone for the first option so I get more time actually machining!

 

[Mike Ginn]

Hi Nealeb
Thats good information. So far in my life I have avoided Linux of all flavo(u)rs mainly due to the driver hassles and the apps which don't run under Linux. I am OK with computers (usually build and configure my own systems) and my background is electronics but I have learned to choose which battles I want to fight! My CNC projects are small and infrequent and the KX1 has limited cutting ability so I am usually making small parts. The labels I referred to are small but use a 0.3mm cutter which generates a high G Code count. I am currently running a cycle of 149,000 lined on a part 70x26mm.
Happy days!
Mike

 

[nealeb]

Line count seems to depend a lot on things like stepover (pretty small with those cutters you are using!) but also on the cutting strategy used. Sometimes the CAM module seems to prefer a large number of straight line approximations when you might expect G2/G3 arcs - such as when you use one of the HSM/trochoidal/material clearing strategies. Just had a quick look back at some of my toolpath files and mine seem to max out around 40-50K lines, and that's generally because it's something like a house nameplate with a 3D model embedded. Small cutter for fine detail = small stepover - although not quite as fine as yours! That's also the point at which you start to learn the difference between tuning the machine for speed or for acceleration. Those fine detail cuts never let the machine get up to full speed so you can use a tuning file that favours acceleration, especially with 3D work.

I spend quite a lot of time watching one or other of my machines whizz round as I do a lot of CNC work. I'm building a 5" gauge steam loco and there is scope for a lot of CNC machining in that. If I can get a machine to do it, why should I spend time and effort with file and hacksaw? Not that I'm trying to start war here, of course!

 

[Mike Ginn]

Good points. I completely agree about reducing effort. I find a small (2inch) power hacksaw a great time saver and reduces the dreaded parting off! Having said all that I choose to make all my own nuts, bolts and washers. I do this for scale - 8BA head on 6BA thread or an elongated bolt head etc. Getting back to CNC. I have no optimization - just the output from CamBam. The 0.3mm cutter is very delicate so I am running at a low feed rate (100units?) and low depth (0.05mm) to a depth of 0.6mm. It's going to take at least 20 hours but I can get on with my Kiwi at the same time so life is fine and the swarf is so fine it doesn't clog the cutter. Usually I don't use cutters less than 6mm so it's a new experience.
Mike

 

[kytauk1]

If we are talking lines, my record on my router doing a 3d carve the max iv had so far is 1.3 million lines, 12 hour carve, that was doing wood, using a 0.5mm tapered ball nose, a lot of my carves are in the 100,000+ range.