Like many others, I started with a very old Mach3 (bless Art) on a Win32 system, controlling steppers on a converted HF mini mill. That still runs, btw, mostly for teaching and demos. It was a paid copy, although most of my work would have fit within the free version (# blocks limited - 1000, IIRC). About $90, I was really drawn to the style and the way you could change the interface - the concept of servo drives were way too expensive, thus I was in a comfortable place. It was closed-loop-feedback that made the change, eventually.
First, I appreciate the open flexibility of the HAL. I use (used EMC2/) LCNC for a variety of things - and the only 3-axis-mill-thingie I have that runs it is that original HF mill! LCNC is operating my Tsugami lathe, (still being retrofitted, btw - it's a never-ending project of upgrades, even though it runs production parts right now), it's gone onto a couple plasma tables for clients, a CMM, some printers (non-3d), a Puma arm, and a ton of single or dual-axis automation - all of that simply possible due to HAL. Right now I'm building a custom comp set for a 5-axis press brake. Not a lot of cross-platform press brake controls out there - that's a world of custom closed-source development, if it's enough to even be considered "Development". Second, but not far behind is the co-operation of the community. I've worked on repairing or installing Mitsubishi, Fanuc and and Siemens controls - mostly because that's what a client had or demanded due to "brand name label desire", but I still prefer LCNC. If the demand required me to be a fully-accredited Fanuc integrator, complete with all open maintenance contracts, I'd probably have better access to information. But with LCNC, there's always someone around who has at minimum part of a solution, or will at least discuss the options - put a few of those together and you're on a really good path to success. It may not be "paid support", but I don't consider it any less valid or valuable. Third, is the continued consistent development. Fanuc may release an O-series control one year, and next year tack another letter on there, and it may not be compatible with your gear, setup and config files. (Probably a bad example, the alpha channel is pretty flexible). But you could have a 5 year old EMC system with a parallel port, have that PC die, and replace it with a current PC with parallel port and be up and going again rather quickly. Or mix servos and drives without LCNC caring much. That list goes on.... Moreover, aside from a few (very minor) changes, when we add capability (like GladeVCP) we haven't traded it for earlier capability (xml VCP) that in doing so strands all the previous users.... like say, Mazak's T series versus their Matrix series. A user could follow the upgrade path if needed, but isn't forced to. Ted. On 6/13/2013 9:14 AM, emc-users-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote: > On 13 June 2013 12:07, Charles Steinkuehler<char...@steinkuehler.net> wrote: > >> >Why do you use LinuxCNC and what are the features you like best? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
