Re: [Emc-developers] Trouble in Mach3 / Mach4 land..
If anyone is communicating with Sergey, please forward his white paper when it is done. EBo -- On Aug 6 2013 2:33 PM, Dave wrote: There has been a heated exchange the last two days on the Mach3 email list that some of you might be interested in.. The discussion centers around the Mach3 planner and the Position - Time data that is passed to a 3rd party plug in when Mach3 is used with an external motion controller. Basically the new Mach4 uses the same data interface and Sergey is not happy about that..as you can read below. It appears that Sergey asked Brian to supply a new, improved interface and Brian is not doing that.. Brian Barker owns Artsoft - the supplier of Mach3. A new version of Mach3, called Mach4 has been in development for years. Sergey, I believe, is the owner of KSI Labs and has a loyal following. Sergey mentioned EMC2/LinuxCNC several times in the reply below. This is his second or third in the exchange with Brian. Brian replied to this message also, but not in any substantial way.. Dave On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Brian Barker wrote: I'm reiterating -- there is _ABSOLUTELY NO NEED_ to remove the old functionality. I've been talking about _ADDING_ the proper trajectory data, _NOT REPLACING_ the old stuff. Sergey's reply Then, the time is now or never. Nobody makes major changes to a software in minor versions. Such a change is MAJOR and usually comes in a new version. E.g. Mach4 vs Mach3. You reworked the code, made major changes so no older plugins would work any more without complete rewriting but you did not put proper functionality in it. The earliest such a functionality could be added is Mach5 -- you don't expect everybody will rewrite their plugins for ANY minor Mach4 version change, do you? -- but I'll probably be well into my retirement by then if I live THAT long. Then, trying to avoid manufacturers rewriting their plugins does not stand even a laugh test. It could've made sense had their old plugins still had been working but they have to rewrite them anyways. Rewriting 85% of their code does not make it any easier than rewriting 85.1%. So there is no hope, you don't want to make your Mach software any closer to professional grade keeping it in for hobby use only category. No problems, it is your choice. You had a chance but you wasted it so you're stuck in that hobby segment. With such an upgrade there is absolutely no REAL need for anybody to switch to the shiny new version -- it won't let them do better MACHINING job, it's the same old candy in a new package. There is also no reason for anybody to use any intelligent controllers with your software because it is pure waste on features that are never used. Your software is not just made to allow using cheapest dumb BBs available, it is made to support _ONLY_ such hardware so anything more complex and intelligent simply _MUST_ be dumbed down to that level. That means _ALL_ advanced features should be turned off ergo there is _ABSOLUTELY_ no reason to pay for any such features. That also means that no matter how good a motion controller is and what its capabilities are there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to do actual MACHINING any better than using a cheapest chinese dumb BB available. Again, this is your choice and I can not tell you what to do. Neither can I push you to do something -- it is all up to you. The thing is I simply can not see where I fit in your world. Neither I'm going to waste my time on making dumb BBs nor there is a need for just a new one -- chinese stuff is abundant and dirt cheap and there is no shortage of that crap, you just whistle... Even if someone WAS going to make something new it is futile because you simply can NOT compete with chinese crap. Sure, there is one other way -- one can deliberately deceive those who don't have any knowledge on the subject by telling them his controller is very advanced and can dance polka, anticipate Mach output, interpolate on a single point etc so illeterate people would buy his stuff. Unfortunately I'm not of the used cars salesman type so I simply can not do that. I'm an engineer by trade and by calling -- I get my endorphins from designing and making things and I'm addicted to it. There is simply no place in your Mach world where I can satisfy that urge to make new things to feed my addiction. I'm getting off your ship not because I'm angry but because I'm bored and there is nothing for me to do here. There is no shame in staying in hobbyist market. There are plenty of people who are hobbyists and they are pretty OK with what your software can do so they simply don't need anything better. Keep serving them, it is a noble task. It is simply not a place for me. I'd rather go where the big
Re: [Emc-developers] Trouble in Mach3 / Mach4 land..
Sergey's email is k...@ksilabs.com if you want to contact him, etc. I'm not sure he is going to be spending much time on the Mach3 email list from now on so I might miss his whitepaper's release.. Dave On 8/7/2013 3:34 AM, EBo wrote: If anyone is communicating with Sergey, please forward his white paper when it is done. EBo -- On Aug 6 2013 2:33 PM, Dave wrote: There has been a heated exchange the last two days on the Mach3 email list that some of you might be interested in.. The discussion centers around the Mach3 planner and the Position - Time data that is passed to a 3rd party plug in when Mach3 is used with an external motion controller. Basically the new Mach4 uses the same data interface and Sergey is not happy about that..as you can read below. It appears that Sergey asked Brian to supply a new, improved interface and Brian is not doing that.. Brian Barker owns Artsoft - the supplier of Mach3. A new version of Mach3, called Mach4 has been in development for years. Sergey, I believe, is the owner of KSI Labs and has a loyal following. Sergey mentioned EMC2/LinuxCNC several times in the reply below. This is his second or third in the exchange with Brian. Brian replied to this message also, but not in any substantial way.. Dave On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Brian Barker wrote: I'm reiterating -- there is _ABSOLUTELY NO NEED_ to remove the old functionality. I've been talking about _ADDING_ the proper trajectory data, _NOT REPLACING_ the old stuff. Sergey's reply Then, the time is now or never. Nobody makes major changes to a software in minor versions. Such a change is MAJOR and usually comes in a new version. E.g. Mach4 vs Mach3. You reworked the code, made major changes so no older plugins would work any more without complete rewriting but you did not put proper functionality in it. The earliest such a functionality could be added is Mach5 -- you don't expect everybody will rewrite their plugins for ANY minor Mach4 version change, do you? -- but I'll probably be well into my retirement by then if I live THAT long. Then, trying to avoid manufacturers rewriting their plugins does not stand even a laugh test. It could've made sense had their old plugins still had been working but they have to rewrite them anyways. Rewriting 85% of their code does not make it any easier than rewriting 85.1%. So there is no hope, you don't want to make your Mach software any closer to professional grade keeping it in for hobby use only category. No problems, it is your choice. You had a chance but you wasted it so you're stuck in that hobby segment. With such an upgrade there is absolutely no REAL need for anybody to switch to the shiny new version -- it won't let them do better MACHINING job, it's the same old candy in a new package. There is also no reason for anybody to use any intelligent controllers with your software because it is pure waste on features that are never used. Your software is not just made to allow using cheapest dumb BBs available, it is made to support _ONLY_ such hardware so anything more complex and intelligent simply _MUST_ be dumbed down to that level. That means _ALL_ advanced features should be turned off ergo there is _ABSOLUTELY_ no reason to pay for any such features. That also means that no matter how good a motion controller is and what its capabilities are there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to do actual MACHINING any better than using a cheapest chinese dumb BB available. Again, this is your choice and I can not tell you what to do. Neither can I push you to do something -- it is all up to you. The thing is I simply can not see where I fit in your world. Neither I'm going to waste my time on making dumb BBs nor there is a need for just a new one -- chinese stuff is abundant and dirt cheap and there is no shortage of that crap, you just whistle... Even if someone WAS going to make something new it is futile because you simply can NOT compete with chinese crap. Sure, there is one other way -- one can deliberately deceive those who don't have any knowledge on the subject by telling them his controller is very advanced and can dance polka, anticipate Mach output, interpolate on a single point etc so illeterate people would buy his stuff. Unfortunately I'm not of the used cars salesman type so I simply can not do that. I'm an engineer by trade and by calling -- I get my endorphins from designing and making things and I'm addicted to it. There is simply no place in your Mach world where I can satisfy that urge to make new things to feed my addiction. I'm getting off your ship not because I'm angry but because I'm bored and there is nothing for me to do here. There is no shame in staying in hobbyist market. There are plenty of people who are hobbyists and
[Emc-developers] Trouble in Mach3 / Mach4 land..
There has been a heated exchange the last two days on the Mach3 email list that some of you might be interested in.. The discussion centers around the Mach3 planner and the Position - Time data that is passed to a 3rd party plug in when Mach3 is used with an external motion controller. Basically the new Mach4 uses the same data interface and Sergey is not happy about that..as you can read below. It appears that Sergey asked Brian to supply a new, improved interface and Brian is not doing that.. Brian Barker owns Artsoft - the supplier of Mach3. A new version of Mach3, called Mach4 has been in development for years. Sergey, I believe, is the owner of KSI Labs and has a loyal following. Sergey mentioned EMC2/LinuxCNC several times in the reply below. This is his second or third in the exchange with Brian. Brian replied to this message also, but not in any substantial way.. Dave On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Brian Barker wrote: I'm reiterating -- there is _ABSOLUTELY NO NEED_ to remove the old functionality. I've been talking about _ADDING_ the proper trajectory data, _NOT REPLACING_ the old stuff. Sergey's reply Then, the time is now or never. Nobody makes major changes to a software in minor versions. Such a change is MAJOR and usually comes in a new version. E.g. Mach4 vs Mach3. You reworked the code, made major changes so no older plugins would work any more without complete rewriting but you did not put proper functionality in it. The earliest such a functionality could be added is Mach5 -- you don't expect everybody will rewrite their plugins for ANY minor Mach4 version change, do you? -- but I'll probably be well into my retirement by then if I live THAT long. Then, trying to avoid manufacturers rewriting their plugins does not stand even a laugh test. It could've made sense had their old plugins still had been working but they have to rewrite them anyways. Rewriting 85% of their code does not make it any easier than rewriting 85.1%. So there is no hope, you don't want to make your Mach software any closer to professional grade keeping it in for hobby use only category. No problems, it is your choice. You had a chance but you wasted it so you're stuck in that hobby segment. With such an upgrade there is absolutely no REAL need for anybody to switch to the shiny new version -- it won't let them do better MACHINING job, it's the same old candy in a new package. There is also no reason for anybody to use any intelligent controllers with your software because it is pure waste on features that are never used. Your software is not just made to allow using cheapest dumb BBs available, it is made to support _ONLY_ such hardware so anything more complex and intelligent simply _MUST_ be dumbed down to that level. That means _ALL_ advanced features should be turned off ergo there is _ABSOLUTELY_ no reason to pay for any such features. That also means that no matter how good a motion controller is and what its capabilities are there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to do actual MACHINING any better than using a cheapest chinese dumb BB available. Again, this is your choice and I can not tell you what to do. Neither can I push you to do something -- it is all up to you. The thing is I simply can not see where I fit in your world. Neither I'm going to waste my time on making dumb BBs nor there is a need for just a new one -- chinese stuff is abundant and dirt cheap and there is no shortage of that crap, you just whistle... Even if someone WAS going to make something new it is futile because you simply can NOT compete with chinese crap. Sure, there is one other way -- one can deliberately deceive those who don't have any knowledge on the subject by telling them his controller is very advanced and can dance polka, anticipate Mach output, interpolate on a single point etc so illeterate people would buy his stuff. Unfortunately I'm not of the used cars salesman type so I simply can not do that. I'm an engineer by trade and by calling -- I get my endorphins from designing and making things and I'm addicted to it. There is simply no place in your Mach world where I can satisfy that urge to make new things to feed my addiction. I'm getting off your ship not because I'm angry but because I'm bored and there is nothing for me to do here. There is no shame in staying in hobbyist market. There are plenty of people who are hobbyists and they are pretty OK with what your software can do so they simply don't need anything better. Keep serving them, it is a noble task. It is simply not a place for me. I'd rather go where the big boys are and where real athletes compete instead of staying at general fitness group for those who is physically challenged or not especially fit. I will keep supporting my hardware on Mach3 but won't do anything for upcoming (?) Mach4 -- there is simply absolutely no need for Mach3 users to
Re: [Emc-developers] Trouble in Mach3 / Mach4 land..
Wow, this is hot! On 08/06/2013 11:33 PM, Dave wrote: There has been a heated exchange the last two days on the Mach3 email list that some of you might be interested in.. The discussion centers around the Mach3 planner and the Position - Time data that is passed to a 3rd party plug in when Mach3 is used with an external motion controller. ... -- Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with 2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
