![]() but will occasionally do something that totally surprises you. It looks and acts a lot better than Mach 3 in general. The issue with Mach4 is that it's sufficiently flaky/buggy that you can never fully trust it. Meaning you can do CAD/CAM right as the machine runs. Mach 3 can do great 3D contouring, all of the new softwares will too.įinally, the main advantage to a windows based control is that you can run Fusion on it. I want my machine to run well and run reliable, so I am not averse to spending money on my machine, ultimately it pays for itself in reduced down time, better performance. Though lots are running UCCNC on very cheap PC’s these days too, like $200 mini pc’s. So you can get away with dredging up a piece of junk from the scrap heap for a control. That said, in the right hands LinuxCNC is really capable, and it can be run for cheap because the hardware requirements are basically nil. ![]() And because I make money with my machine I’d rather have real support than have to deal with a community forum. ![]() LinuxCNC is great, but I just get tired of dealing with Linux. I pretty much prefer UCCCNC at this point, it’s absolutely better than M3/4. I’ve also used M4, LinuxCNC, and most recently UCCNC. I’ve used M3 very extensively and understand its limitations very well. It just seems to be a necessity for using the software. TO get M4 really working you are looking at doing some programming in LUA. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |