Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Post anything you want to discuss with others about the software.

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby ger21 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:36 am

Do any of the controls you are talking about cost $60?

What hobby level software controls have individual modules for each different application?

Yes, separate applications for each type of machine would be preferable, especially when it comes to lathe, but it's not a viable option at this price point. If you were paying $500 for the software, then that's a different story.

Why aren't you using any of these commercial controllers, if they are so much better?
UCCNC 2017 Screenset - http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:17 am

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:05 am

Why would price have anything to do with this discussion :shock: IF price is a key factor WHY do you have as many features as you do for $60. For $60 bucks it should be a basic 3 axis CNC function only programed by Cam only with ZERO bells and whistles. AND no future developement.

So you think having everything rolled into one massive code base is easier/better than doing individual moduals ??

Lets say for grins and giggles that one created a plasma application and teh ONLY code in it was to run plasma as 2d 4 axis and nothing else.

Would it be

Easier to maintain and update ??
Be much simpler code wise??
Less apt to get a bug?
Be easier to debug?
Be more stable over time??
Once developed and debugged run for years with little support??
Cheaper IF teh users did not have to pay for MILL/turn/laser features and developement and support as they would NEVER use them.

And by the way UCCNC is a decent DIY Plasma controller.

(;-) TP
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby extent » Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:26 am

https://www.fanuc.eu/si/en/cnc/controls ... rol-series

I don't see any machine class controls listed at all (on the contrary they control all manner of cnc machines, and loaders, and robots) they differentiate mainly on number of axis controlled, number of simultaneous movement axis, and other advanced features.

https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/ ... stems.html

Siemens only seems to differentiate by holding back grinding for the more advanced controls, but all models handle mill/turn. One of their major selling points is actually that all the controls use the same SINUMERIK CNC kernel that allows you to run offline simulation and setup for any machine running their control with one package.

If you're talking about the random crap chinese control boxes that you can get on ebay or ali then those are largely differentiated by what physical hardware they have, and you really don't have a way to know what the software running in them is capable of. Very likely they're all running the same code base within each brand, just with different features enabled or disabled in software. Just like the bluetooth DRO that I have on my lathe, I have the source code for the firmware, and I know that it supports spindle index pulse sensing, but the box that it came in doesn't have any of the circuitry for pulse sensing, so that feature just doesn't show up, even though all of the source code is the same for it.

Everything in one massive code base is far better and far easier. Every bit of shared code you can have is less work that you have to do, because fixes you can make once and they apply to every possible "module" If you have even a single bug in a split module thing you've instantly multiplied the amount of work it takes to fix by the number of unique products you have, and probably even more if you have diverging code bases where a simple fix in one moduleized version becomes a complicated fix in other modules.

It may be hard to understand if you've never dealt with any large codebases yourself, but the answer to all of your questions is a firm and unqualified "No",
except for the last question to which I'd shrug and say "Maybe?"
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 11:09 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:20 pm

Any time i have ordered a control from say like Fanuc I have to specify what Modual I want on teh control.


From that point I order the Number of Axis and features I need to go with it.

Once received a turn controller will not run Mill as it is specific to Turn.

Look at teh basic user manuals there are Turn manuals and Mill Manuals.

I am not sure I would agree that a single massive Code base would be easier to manage ;) I think you are thinking that every modual would constantly need teh same stuff worked on but that is not the case as things such as Plasma/Laser need very little work compared to Mill/Router. And I am talking core work not cosmetics.

Certainly NOT talking about chinese controllers. But lets look at it from a lower level. Take Centroid thay have been around doing CNC conversions for a LONG time now. There has to be a reason they spit their software into 2 moduals Mill and Turn.

Just to be clear I am NOT a programmer by any definition. But it is not always what you know but WHO you know that knows what you want to know. That part I do know.

Just my experience yours may vary, (;-)
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Derek » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:32 pm

I'm going to weigh in here even though I'm no programer. Having modules may mean more work for the programers but less risk for the users. Right now making a change to something that is for plasma only can break something in mill. I have personally experienced this. Also the reason I spotted it is because I'm doing things with my machines that others don't. It wasn't like when I started UCCNC it kicked up a warning. No it showed up running code and macros on a machine that I had run thousands and thousands of times. Because the plasma fix was rolled into a fix I was interested in I only paid attention to the fix that pertained to the mill.

Modules would put the testing onus on those that are using the module. I would prefer that a change that is pertinent to plasma only would be part of a separate module. I'm sure plasma users would be pissed if a change to tapping caused the plasma head to dive into the work.

I'm also going to admit the problem is people like me who are using a hobby system to do professional work. Yes it can do a lot things but it is a $60.00 program. How much development can possibly go into 60.00 software? Like Mach it does most basic 3 axis operations extremely well. But when you get into more complex demands things start to get a little wonky.
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:57 am

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby asuratman » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:34 pm

When will 4th axis rotary program be available ? What will be developed after cnc mill/router ? CNC turning ?
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:50 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby cncdrive » Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:54 pm

You can already do rotary work with the UCCNC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox4SrYt-qEY

We have no short term plans for lathe support.
Site Admin
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:17 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:36 pm

YES but that is simply 4th axis indexing (3+1). For teh most part it is only XZ with A indexing.

It is not interpolated simultaneous 4th axis machining where all 4 axis could be moving at the same time.

At the present UCCNC cannot pull that one off because of feedrate considerations for A axis being polar and XYZ being linear.

(;-) TP
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA


Return to General discussion about the UCCNC software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests