Karl Townsend wrote:

...
more for limits and homes) The one indisputable strength of Camsoft is
how well it integrates I/O with the control.

Sorry, both EMC/EMC2 and Mach3 also handle as much I/O as you need quite
happily

I can see agreeing on which control is best is just like agreeing
whose religion is best.

Nope, it's not about agreeing on which control is best, the answer there
is clearly the big guys like Fanuc. The issue is about not making untrue
claims that one retrofit control handles lots of I/O better than the
others.


My control is better, but its too expensive.

Better than EMC/EMC2 or Mach3 how?

If EMC were this well
developed when I started doing serious refits, I would have went that
route.

Mach3 was that well developed when you started, but you didn't notice
that it could handle as much I/O and as much scripting as any of the
competitors.

I would, and have, recommended EMC to other hobbyists. I
personally still wouldn't suggest EMC to a shop in business for $
unless they had a refit guru on site.

Which is why I also would not recommend EMC to a commercial shop for a
retrofit, even if they had a guru since gurus can leave. I'd recommend
Mach3 which is very user friendly, or possible EMC2 which I believe is
pretty close to Mach3 in terms of user friendlieness now.


Now the other control you mention has a concept design problem for
serious machines. No amount of good engineering can overcome a poor
concept.

What is this mysterious concept design problem you think Mach3 has?
People are using Mach3 for serious machines and many commercial machines
are using it as well, not just hobbiest ones. You just seem to want to
dismiss Mach3 without taking a good look at it.


Like I said, its like religion. If you aren't a Lutheran, you're just
not right VBG. My two cents. I'm not changing your mind, you won't
change mine.

You haven't provided any details on why you think Mach3 is inferior.


Now, this tool change logic will be a stone bitch. "The Kid" has asked
for ability to load tools every other pocket and then always put the
tool in the empty next to the one you need for very rapid tool change.
This could get REAL COMPLEX and may not happen.

That would be pretty insane since you'd have to constantly be changing
the tool table. The big machines do fast tool changes by using a double
ended tool changer arm, pre-fetching the next tool on one side and then
doing the quick swap at the spindle letting it get back to work while
the old tool is being put away. Looking at the pictures, you don't have
clearance to change to a double ended ATC arm.

Yea, I'm not modifying the machine. I may play with a dynamic tool
table. WAY down the road.

I'm not sure why there is this need for ATC speed, are you going to be
producing some product? Heck, I can't see the need for the second
spindle at all, I'd just keep one side of the machine as spare parts for
the other. I don't recall seeing any dual spindle machines at the IMTS
show, they are a barnacle left from the days when controls were really
expensive so you wanted to double the output of the machine.