Has anyone else given up on Mach_X_ and converted to KMotionCNC?  I'm a bit tired of waiting for Mach3 to be supported, and given up on waiting for Mach4 ever to be released.... and recently realized that I can buy a KFlop for (likely less than) the purchase price of Mach4 (if it is ever released...).....

I've use KMotionCNC during my migration away from Mach3's ancient and buggy codebase. That led me to write my own CNC App. Like you I was waiting and waiting and finally gave up on the Mach_X rewrite. Although KMotionCNC seems fine enough for most users that run GCode I was after a whole 'nother level of customization and flexibility. Tom & company have never failed to provide the support I needed as I dove headfirst into KFlop and KMotionDotNet programming and I couldn't have figured it all out without them or the product. I would not hesitate to base a product or equipment on their hardware.

Mach3 has been around a while and may still have some features that you need but are lacking in KMotionCNC. BUT--if you are or have access to someone that can write code I have no doubt you could get what you need. You are correct about Mach4--over it's development cycle it has lost features that were promoted and is years late. for me the last straw was when scripting has been "demoted" to Lua.

I can totally understand your concerns about a "single point of failure", in this case Tom/Dynomotion, but as I often tell my engineers, any company can make a decision to change or eliminate a product line at any time. In my business (not CNC) I've had the rug pulled out from beneath me several times do to those type of events. To me, the benefits of the KFlop far outweigh such concerns. You however, may have millions of dollars riding on your decision to commit to KFlop and therefore have a different perspective.

Hope that helps.

sam marrocco | chief technical officer
ringside.cutters.picnic.moonlink

248 548 2500 w
248 910 3344 c

ringsidecreative.com

 

On 10/21/2014 7:44 PM, steve@... [DynoMotion] wrote:

 

Has anyone else given up on Mach_X_ and converted to KMotionCNC?  I'm a bit tired of waiting for Mach3 to be supported, and given up on waiting for Mach4 ever to be released.... and recently realized that I can buy a KFlop for (likely less than) the purchase price of Mach4 (if it is ever released...).....

I've use KMotionCNC during my migration away from Mach3's ancient and buggy codebase. That led me to write my own CNC App. Like you I was waiting and waiting and finally gave up on the Mach_X rewrite. Although KMotionCNC seems fine enough for most users that run GCode I was after a whole 'nother level of customization and flexibility. Tom & company have never failed to provide the support I needed as I dove headfirst into KFlop and KMotionDotNet programming and I couldn't have figured it all out without them or the product. I would not hesitate to base a product or equipment on their hardware.

Mach3 has been around a while and may still have some features that you need but are lacking in KMotionCNC. BUT--if you are or have access to someone that can write code I have no doubt you could get what you need. You are correct about Mach4--over it's development cycle it has lost features that were promoted and is years late. for me the last straw was when scripting has been "demoted" to Lua.

I can totally understand your concerns about a "single point of failure", in this case Tom/Dynomotion, but as I often tell my engineers, any company can make a decision to change or eliminate a product line at any time. In my business (not CNC) I've had the rug pulled out from beneath me several times do to those type of events. To me, the benefits of the KFlop far outweigh such concerns. You however, may have millions of dollars riding on your decision to commit to KFlop and therefore have a different perspective.

Hope that helps.

sam marrocco | chief technical officer
ringside.cutters.picnic.moonlink

248 548 2500 w
248 910 3344 c

ringsidecreative.com