I was planning to download Mach3 on the site but they took it of?? does anybody know why??
http://www.nextwaveautomation.com/DownLoads.aspx
I dont know much of this software but they told me it was pretty cool...
What Happen to Mach3
Moderators: al wolford, sbk, Bob, Kayvon
Re: What Happen to Mach3
It seems that Mach3 is no longer supported by NWA since they moved to a proprietary controller. Earlier versions of the NC pod were supposed to be supported in Mach3 but it required a separate firmware version to do it. I am not sure of NWA's official stance on this. Perhaps Tim can weigh in on it.
I know NWA sold Mach3 and BobCad a while back ( my machine came with it) before adopting Vectric as their main woodworking solution. (Vectric is very good software and better suited for woodworking than BobCad which is more of an engineering application item).
I continue to use Mach3 and can see no advantage in changing to the newer NCpod controller as it is proprietary and would make me take a step backwards in accessories. IMHO. My setup has never had an issue of any kind and I see folks struggling with the NCpod based setup quite often on this forum.
I would have to give up my 3 axis touch plates , pendant controller, 3d probe, and a much more informative interface , which I use all the time.
In addition, Mach3 has supported a 4th axis for years.
I for one would love to see NWA allow a mach3 connection again, but it seems as if they are trying to make the machine a more closed system with registration codes and procedures, and tight control over accessories (only available from them).
My touch probe, pendant, touch plates etc are all non NWA items. Mach 3 can also use an XBox 360 usb controller (or wireless version) as a joystick pendant.
With a significant upgrade in the works (Mach4) and the ability to use a usb based micro-stepping controller like the Smoothstepper, I see no advantages for the customer to the current direction NWA is choosing. I would love to see them return to a more "open system" of well accepted industry standard electronics.
I know NWA sold Mach3 and BobCad a while back ( my machine came with it) before adopting Vectric as their main woodworking solution. (Vectric is very good software and better suited for woodworking than BobCad which is more of an engineering application item).
I continue to use Mach3 and can see no advantage in changing to the newer NCpod controller as it is proprietary and would make me take a step backwards in accessories. IMHO. My setup has never had an issue of any kind and I see folks struggling with the NCpod based setup quite often on this forum.
I would have to give up my 3 axis touch plates , pendant controller, 3d probe, and a much more informative interface , which I use all the time.
In addition, Mach3 has supported a 4th axis for years.
I for one would love to see NWA allow a mach3 connection again, but it seems as if they are trying to make the machine a more closed system with registration codes and procedures, and tight control over accessories (only available from them).
My touch probe, pendant, touch plates etc are all non NWA items. Mach 3 can also use an XBox 360 usb controller (or wireless version) as a joystick pendant.
With a significant upgrade in the works (Mach4) and the ability to use a usb based micro-stepping controller like the Smoothstepper, I see no advantages for the customer to the current direction NWA is choosing. I would love to see them return to a more "open system" of well accepted industry standard electronics.
-
enriquewoodcarver
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:23 pm
Re: What Happen to Mach3
I agree..... but that sucks bcuz I wanted to try it but I didnt download it before bcuz I was too busy and now that I have a lil bit time wanted to try it out which I just download the update for the control panel it seems pretty good and better than the one before....so the only way I can get the software is at ther site right....
ER
Re: What Happen to Mach3
Mach3 can be found at the authors site.
http://www.machsupport.com/
They have a fully functional trial version, but you will still need the firmware for the NCpod to let mach3 interface with your machine.
I do not know if that is available anymore.
To me an advantage of a standard interface is that you can have several different size and types of machines that all use the same controller.
For example, I am building a 3d printer now that uses mach3 to drive it, so very little new learning curve. My mill conversion also uses Mach3.
http://www.machsupport.com/
They have a fully functional trial version, but you will still need the firmware for the NCpod to let mach3 interface with your machine.
I do not know if that is available anymore.
To me an advantage of a standard interface is that you can have several different size and types of machines that all use the same controller.
For example, I am building a 3d printer now that uses mach3 to drive it, so very little new learning curve. My mill conversion also uses Mach3.
Re: What Happen to Mach3
I don't think this is an issue of NWA hiding behind proprietary configurations. If Mach 3 wanted to support the NCPOD configuration found in the Shark Control Box, and connected to the computer using a USB cable, I suspect that they could. It may be a market demand and return on their investment thing, IDK.
The earliest versions of the Shark (Shark and Shark Pro) talked to the computer using a serial cable, not a usb cable. Prior to Vectric coming on the scene, the very earliest Sharks and legacy NWA router machine used BobCad and Mach. That configuration in fact was supported at that time by Mach, and folks could choose to purchase and use it. I've been told that there has been some turbulence as well with the Mach development team, and that may or may not have contributed to their choice of not supporting the use of their software with the Shark Control Box via USB cable.
NWA did have a separate section of the download page for the Shark Control Box firmware that would enable use of Mach software, but that only ever worked with the Shark and Shark Pro. It never worked with the Pro Plus, as the Control Box hardware changed at that point, also introducing the USB connection. This was confusing to many as unfortunately NWA never stated this clearly (at least in my opinion). They clearly chose to remove this as the hardware is now USB, some internal components have been updated, and again, Mach has chosen not to maintain support for the Shark Control Box up to this point.
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that NWA is not using well accepted industry standard electronics. Even if they're not, the price and performance are good enough for me. I've read a number of posts on more generic CNC forums where a given CNC machine appears not to be compatible with Mach 3, so I don't think this current incompatibility is something that is NWA's 'fault'.
I can understand your frustration as a more advanced user with specific desires/requirements/use cases where Mach 3 usability would be best.
I'm not an insider, but this is my take on the situation based on conversations with Tim and others since ownership.
The earliest versions of the Shark (Shark and Shark Pro) talked to the computer using a serial cable, not a usb cable. Prior to Vectric coming on the scene, the very earliest Sharks and legacy NWA router machine used BobCad and Mach. That configuration in fact was supported at that time by Mach, and folks could choose to purchase and use it. I've been told that there has been some turbulence as well with the Mach development team, and that may or may not have contributed to their choice of not supporting the use of their software with the Shark Control Box via USB cable.
NWA did have a separate section of the download page for the Shark Control Box firmware that would enable use of Mach software, but that only ever worked with the Shark and Shark Pro. It never worked with the Pro Plus, as the Control Box hardware changed at that point, also introducing the USB connection. This was confusing to many as unfortunately NWA never stated this clearly (at least in my opinion). They clearly chose to remove this as the hardware is now USB, some internal components have been updated, and again, Mach has chosen not to maintain support for the Shark Control Box up to this point.
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that NWA is not using well accepted industry standard electronics. Even if they're not, the price and performance are good enough for me. I've read a number of posts on more generic CNC forums where a given CNC machine appears not to be compatible with Mach 3, so I don't think this current incompatibility is something that is NWA's 'fault'.
I can understand your frustration as a more advanced user with specific desires/requirements/use cases where Mach 3 usability would be best.
I'm not an insider, but this is my take on the situation based on conversations with Tim and others since ownership.
Re: What Happen to Mach3
I sent an email to the Mach3 folks this morning to ask them what is required for the new Shark controller to be supported by their software. I received a reply a couple of hours later.
This is definitely not an issue of Mach3 determining who they will support. If they are approached by someone with a new controller, they will work with them to help them develop a driver. Mach3 is not the one who would usually do all the work. If fact, they told me that Art at Mach3 wrote the initial NCpod driver by himself ( which was a bit unusual from their standpoint). They told me that NWA had been in touch with Mach3 some time ago, but the Mach3 folks could not get the NWA sample to communicate reliably and had requested more info that they never received. From their standpoint they are willing to help, but NWA stopped talking with them. They do not see a lot of users with the NCpods. Most have gone on to Smoothstepper boards.
I am not sure why NWA decided to go it on their own to develop their own closed system, (which actually removed features from what they previously sold). Only Tim can tell us that. If you are buying your first machine now, you don't see what was removed, and as some of these things are put back into the new closed Shark system, they will become "new features". Why should you not have a touch plate, when the older systems supported them? I see folks struggle with getting a z axis to zero , when it is so easy with a touch plate. If you had a pendant, or a wireless joystick, you might really find them incredibly useful.
If NWA wanted to allow users to have Mach3 they could do it in several ways. One would be to work with the folks at Mach3 on getting a working driver for the newest NWA proprietary controller, or they could just make the step and direction control lines of their new controller/driver combination available at a connector that could be used directly by Mach3 ( or through a breakout board.)
To me, it does not seem like NWA is at all interested in this, and will most likely forge ahead with their own proprietary closed system that will interface only to hardware that they sell. If all the features were there, if the interface was as good or better than before, and if the system was pretty bulletproof, there wouldn't be as much of an issue in following where NWA seems to be going.
As long as you only use Vectric software, you are probably going to be fine. The problem comes when there is something new in the software arena and it does not support the new proprietary Shark controller. Chances are new software offerings will likely support Mach3 because there are so many Mach3 machines out there. If you develop something that works with Mach3, you instantly get a potential customer base in the tens of thousands, whereas the proprietary Shark system will be more in the hundreds to low thousands.
I just see the system becoming closed and proprietary, and personally will choose to stay open system with Mach3. To me that is a minus for NWA in that competitors are now getting all metal machines down in the 4 to 5K range which will create some serious competition in the Shark's price range. They are definitely not 10K anymore. I did not look seriously at Shop Bot because they also have a closed system , whereas folks like K2, Romaxx, Probotics are open systems.
Just my 2 cents, but it is hard to lose features if you are thinking about "upgrading" to a new model from the same manufacturer.
This is definitely not an issue of Mach3 determining who they will support. If they are approached by someone with a new controller, they will work with them to help them develop a driver. Mach3 is not the one who would usually do all the work. If fact, they told me that Art at Mach3 wrote the initial NCpod driver by himself ( which was a bit unusual from their standpoint). They told me that NWA had been in touch with Mach3 some time ago, but the Mach3 folks could not get the NWA sample to communicate reliably and had requested more info that they never received. From their standpoint they are willing to help, but NWA stopped talking with them. They do not see a lot of users with the NCpods. Most have gone on to Smoothstepper boards.
I am not sure why NWA decided to go it on their own to develop their own closed system, (which actually removed features from what they previously sold). Only Tim can tell us that. If you are buying your first machine now, you don't see what was removed, and as some of these things are put back into the new closed Shark system, they will become "new features". Why should you not have a touch plate, when the older systems supported them? I see folks struggle with getting a z axis to zero , when it is so easy with a touch plate. If you had a pendant, or a wireless joystick, you might really find them incredibly useful.
If NWA wanted to allow users to have Mach3 they could do it in several ways. One would be to work with the folks at Mach3 on getting a working driver for the newest NWA proprietary controller, or they could just make the step and direction control lines of their new controller/driver combination available at a connector that could be used directly by Mach3 ( or through a breakout board.)
To me, it does not seem like NWA is at all interested in this, and will most likely forge ahead with their own proprietary closed system that will interface only to hardware that they sell. If all the features were there, if the interface was as good or better than before, and if the system was pretty bulletproof, there wouldn't be as much of an issue in following where NWA seems to be going.
As long as you only use Vectric software, you are probably going to be fine. The problem comes when there is something new in the software arena and it does not support the new proprietary Shark controller. Chances are new software offerings will likely support Mach3 because there are so many Mach3 machines out there. If you develop something that works with Mach3, you instantly get a potential customer base in the tens of thousands, whereas the proprietary Shark system will be more in the hundreds to low thousands.
I just see the system becoming closed and proprietary, and personally will choose to stay open system with Mach3. To me that is a minus for NWA in that competitors are now getting all metal machines down in the 4 to 5K range which will create some serious competition in the Shark's price range. They are definitely not 10K anymore. I did not look seriously at Shop Bot because they also have a closed system , whereas folks like K2, Romaxx, Probotics are open systems.
Just my 2 cents, but it is hard to lose features if you are thinking about "upgrading" to a new model from the same manufacturer.
Re: What Happen to Mach3
Rungemach I am surprised if you were interested in sending an email to the Mach 3 guys you didn’t also send one to us.
History on NWA and Mach 2/3.
First of all when Mach 3 was owned by Art (ArtCam) he was very forth coming in helping us building interfaces like the Probe and NcPod interfaces we have used.
We actually have Mach 3 running in our shop on sharks alongside our software controller.
Rungemach when you bought your machine the only way you could connect to Mach 2 at that time was thought a parallel port. The parallel port was a dying tech at that time and have pretty much gone the way of the cassette tape. Also we spent a fair amount of time getting people up and running with Mach 2/3 (not easy for many customers that do not have a computer background). The Mach 3 was an added cost $175 as an added component to the machine price. We decided to go with a product that allowed us usb easy connect and setup NCPOD interface with no additional cost to the user unless they wanted to add it.
Mach 3 still works on the Shark and Pro units. However the new controller for the HD and the Pro plus have a different initialization and setup parameters that Mach (new owners) have been resistant to help us on this. Now when we came out with the new controller Art had sold the business. The new owners dragged their feet it seemed why should they (Mach) help a company (NWA) that has not made Mach there exclusive controller software.
At the start of the New Year NWA decided to do a push to do a bunch of new attachments and add-ons this quarter. This included a new interface for Mach3. This has required us to get a vendor to take the code put a wrapper on it and rework it to get it to function on the new controller. This is in testing now.
We currently have the probe in our software and the touch plate and homing switch functions that will be in the next version (1.5.0.23) and people will not have to shell out the 175.00 to use it. We do have a pendant control on our current software that is a usb number keypad that allows full jog control.
Now Rungemach you have a pendant which I don’t know what you have but you more than likely paid more money to have it and interface with mach 3. We have tried to offer people the ability to plug in and go and not have to open a box (if they don’t want to) and rig something to work with other controllers. If an advanced person who loves to do that then great but most of our customers do not and prefer our controller.
Also this system is not closed and we do not use any special gcode that only vectric uses. People use solid works, auto cad, Turbocad, BobCad to name a few that work directly with our machine. . So there is no closed system that you keep stating.
If you want the mach 3 firmware for a Shark or a Pro then contact me at towens@nextwaveautomation.com but I have had it off the website for over a month and this is the first request I have seen. We will post the new version after we test it a bit more.
History on NWA and Mach 2/3.
First of all when Mach 3 was owned by Art (ArtCam) he was very forth coming in helping us building interfaces like the Probe and NcPod interfaces we have used.
We actually have Mach 3 running in our shop on sharks alongside our software controller.
Rungemach when you bought your machine the only way you could connect to Mach 2 at that time was thought a parallel port. The parallel port was a dying tech at that time and have pretty much gone the way of the cassette tape. Also we spent a fair amount of time getting people up and running with Mach 2/3 (not easy for many customers that do not have a computer background). The Mach 3 was an added cost $175 as an added component to the machine price. We decided to go with a product that allowed us usb easy connect and setup NCPOD interface with no additional cost to the user unless they wanted to add it.
Mach 3 still works on the Shark and Pro units. However the new controller for the HD and the Pro plus have a different initialization and setup parameters that Mach (new owners) have been resistant to help us on this. Now when we came out with the new controller Art had sold the business. The new owners dragged their feet it seemed why should they (Mach) help a company (NWA) that has not made Mach there exclusive controller software.
At the start of the New Year NWA decided to do a push to do a bunch of new attachments and add-ons this quarter. This included a new interface for Mach3. This has required us to get a vendor to take the code put a wrapper on it and rework it to get it to function on the new controller. This is in testing now.
We currently have the probe in our software and the touch plate and homing switch functions that will be in the next version (1.5.0.23) and people will not have to shell out the 175.00 to use it. We do have a pendant control on our current software that is a usb number keypad that allows full jog control.
Now Rungemach you have a pendant which I don’t know what you have but you more than likely paid more money to have it and interface with mach 3. We have tried to offer people the ability to plug in and go and not have to open a box (if they don’t want to) and rig something to work with other controllers. If an advanced person who loves to do that then great but most of our customers do not and prefer our controller.
Also this system is not closed and we do not use any special gcode that only vectric uses. People use solid works, auto cad, Turbocad, BobCad to name a few that work directly with our machine. . So there is no closed system that you keep stating.
If you want the mach 3 firmware for a Shark or a Pro then contact me at towens@nextwaveautomation.com but I have had it off the website for over a month and this is the first request I have seen. We will post the new version after we test it a bit more.
Re: What Happen to Mach3
Hello Tim.
Thanks for your reply. To answer some of the points you make, I emailed Mach3 because Joe, in his post, seemed to say that it was Mach3 who chose to not support you and it was their decision. (or at least thats how I read it). "Mach has chosen not to maintain support for the Shark Control Box up to this point."
'That seemed unusual to me that the process of creating drivers would be the sole responsibility of Mach3, I expected that it is most likely a joint process. Mach3 (Artsoft/Newfangled Solutions) has always been prompt and helpful to me, and I sent them a quick email to ask what was required to get Mach3 to work on the new shark, and who does what. The topic of the thread here seemed to be getting Mach3 to work with the Shark.
I had an answer from Mach3 in less than two hours. I am sorry if you take might this as a slight, it was not meant that way. Joe seemed to me to be placing the issue with Mach3 folks and not you. You are also seeming to say that progress sits with Mach3 as they are "resistant to help us". Since Joe pointed the finger at them, (and now you seem to say the same), I felt it best to ask them and encourage them to think about getting this to happen. Was it wrong to ask them?
I understand that Mach3 has a cost associated with it and does not come bundled to you with hardware like the NCpod interface did. I am assuming that you have developed/improved the NCpod interface as an ongoing proprietary product to you, and thats fine. Your development costs are not free to you, and you are including them in the price of your product. With the new controller came issues of registration and getting codes, that has appeared in the forum here due to lack of getting working codes for some new users, or the right firmware versions for the right machine, etc.
I sat by and watch this happen and feel some sense of loss as the new system has removed significant previously existing features and also caused some new problems. That to me seems like one step forward, two or more steps back. If I had the new system now, I would be patiently waiting for you support the things that you offered before and be forced to wait for you to write it into the system. That is why , at this time, the new system is a step backward for me, and would make me totally dependent on your development choices and delivery schedule. I refer to Mach3 as being more of an open system in that "plug ins" and add ons like screen sets can be developed by other companies and users. I am not forced to rely on Mach3 to decide what I should or should not have, or who it can be bought from.
For the record, what is your position on third party hardware/software?
To answer your pendant question, my usb pendant has a MPG control wheel (which I absolutely love and use all the time) and it came with the software bundled with it, so the software / interface was "free" in the same sense that the NCpod interface was "free" when you bought the hardware. I bought the pendant from a third party, not Mach3. It required no hardware installation other than plugging it in. The XBox controller software is free, posted on the Mach3 site, and you can buy the controller for about 40.00 dollars wherever you want to, (or steal one from your kids while they are asleep). Personally, I don't consider a numeric keyboard a pendant or joystick. Non of these devices required anything more than plugging them in, and copying a file into the Mach directory.
I consider a "closed system" one that requires only certain hardware can be used, and that hardware is supplied by the same company that controls the software/firmware. I don't expect that you make your code available to anyone like true "open source" software may be. I probably should have chosen a different term, but your system has become a captive hardware/software type of system, as opposed to what you had before. By taking the action to remove the Mach3 version firmware from your site, you are indicating with your actions that Mach3 has gone away, and the future is with your proprietary controller. I think by doing this, you somewhat constrict your market. If you had not started out with Mach2/3 it would be less of an issue and there would be no shark users with pendants , touch plates, etc out there yet.
To give you an example on the software side, I am building a 3d printer, Coincidentally, Slic3r software (that slices the 3d model and generates the gcode) supports the mainstream 3d printer controllers and also Mach3 directly as one of only 4 choices for gcode type. My point being that the size of user base enjoyed by Mach3 allows me to do things and get things I could not get as easily with a proprietary controller with a smaller user base. I believe that Solidworks, Autocad, etc that you mention need to be processed through a gcode generator like BobCad, so they do not support cnc controllers directly (correct me if Solidworks can drive the shark directly.). So they don't work directly with your system, but pass though a mediating program that does work with your system. I would imagine I would find Mach3 support more common in Gcode generators than "NWA new shark".
That is why I would encourage you to not turn away from Mach3 compatibility. Personally, I feel it will hurt you and the brand. Both you and Mach3 are saying they are willing to work on this, and you are saying that it is Mach3 that is holding it up. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but I encourage you to make it happen. Just my 2 cents.
I do believe that the pro's and con's of what you are doing should be able to be discussed in an open forum like this, and I strongly encourage you to share your vision of what the Shark is becoming and why, and where you see it going in the future. Current and potential customers should know what they are getting, and what they may be missing, and base their decisions on their own needs, current and future.
For that I applaud Rockler for making this an open forum, and the support and advice from users here are IMHO a main reason to consider the Shark.
Thanks for your reply. To answer some of the points you make, I emailed Mach3 because Joe, in his post, seemed to say that it was Mach3 who chose to not support you and it was their decision. (or at least thats how I read it). "Mach has chosen not to maintain support for the Shark Control Box up to this point."
'That seemed unusual to me that the process of creating drivers would be the sole responsibility of Mach3, I expected that it is most likely a joint process. Mach3 (Artsoft/Newfangled Solutions) has always been prompt and helpful to me, and I sent them a quick email to ask what was required to get Mach3 to work on the new shark, and who does what. The topic of the thread here seemed to be getting Mach3 to work with the Shark.
I had an answer from Mach3 in less than two hours. I am sorry if you take might this as a slight, it was not meant that way. Joe seemed to me to be placing the issue with Mach3 folks and not you. You are also seeming to say that progress sits with Mach3 as they are "resistant to help us". Since Joe pointed the finger at them, (and now you seem to say the same), I felt it best to ask them and encourage them to think about getting this to happen. Was it wrong to ask them?
I understand that Mach3 has a cost associated with it and does not come bundled to you with hardware like the NCpod interface did. I am assuming that you have developed/improved the NCpod interface as an ongoing proprietary product to you, and thats fine. Your development costs are not free to you, and you are including them in the price of your product. With the new controller came issues of registration and getting codes, that has appeared in the forum here due to lack of getting working codes for some new users, or the right firmware versions for the right machine, etc.
I sat by and watch this happen and feel some sense of loss as the new system has removed significant previously existing features and also caused some new problems. That to me seems like one step forward, two or more steps back. If I had the new system now, I would be patiently waiting for you support the things that you offered before and be forced to wait for you to write it into the system. That is why , at this time, the new system is a step backward for me, and would make me totally dependent on your development choices and delivery schedule. I refer to Mach3 as being more of an open system in that "plug ins" and add ons like screen sets can be developed by other companies and users. I am not forced to rely on Mach3 to decide what I should or should not have, or who it can be bought from.
For the record, what is your position on third party hardware/software?
To answer your pendant question, my usb pendant has a MPG control wheel (which I absolutely love and use all the time) and it came with the software bundled with it, so the software / interface was "free" in the same sense that the NCpod interface was "free" when you bought the hardware. I bought the pendant from a third party, not Mach3. It required no hardware installation other than plugging it in. The XBox controller software is free, posted on the Mach3 site, and you can buy the controller for about 40.00 dollars wherever you want to, (or steal one from your kids while they are asleep). Personally, I don't consider a numeric keyboard a pendant or joystick. Non of these devices required anything more than plugging them in, and copying a file into the Mach directory.
I consider a "closed system" one that requires only certain hardware can be used, and that hardware is supplied by the same company that controls the software/firmware. I don't expect that you make your code available to anyone like true "open source" software may be. I probably should have chosen a different term, but your system has become a captive hardware/software type of system, as opposed to what you had before. By taking the action to remove the Mach3 version firmware from your site, you are indicating with your actions that Mach3 has gone away, and the future is with your proprietary controller. I think by doing this, you somewhat constrict your market. If you had not started out with Mach2/3 it would be less of an issue and there would be no shark users with pendants , touch plates, etc out there yet.
To give you an example on the software side, I am building a 3d printer, Coincidentally, Slic3r software (that slices the 3d model and generates the gcode) supports the mainstream 3d printer controllers and also Mach3 directly as one of only 4 choices for gcode type. My point being that the size of user base enjoyed by Mach3 allows me to do things and get things I could not get as easily with a proprietary controller with a smaller user base. I believe that Solidworks, Autocad, etc that you mention need to be processed through a gcode generator like BobCad, so they do not support cnc controllers directly (correct me if Solidworks can drive the shark directly.). So they don't work directly with your system, but pass though a mediating program that does work with your system. I would imagine I would find Mach3 support more common in Gcode generators than "NWA new shark".
That is why I would encourage you to not turn away from Mach3 compatibility. Personally, I feel it will hurt you and the brand. Both you and Mach3 are saying they are willing to work on this, and you are saying that it is Mach3 that is holding it up. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but I encourage you to make it happen. Just my 2 cents.
I do believe that the pro's and con's of what you are doing should be able to be discussed in an open forum like this, and I strongly encourage you to share your vision of what the Shark is becoming and why, and where you see it going in the future. Current and potential customers should know what they are getting, and what they may be missing, and base their decisions on their own needs, current and future.
For that I applaud Rockler for making this an open forum, and the support and advice from users here are IMHO a main reason to consider the Shark.
-
enriquewoodcarver
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:23 pm
Re: What Happen to Mach3
wow...
well the new update of the "CNC Shark Control Panel" I liked it with the option of the "step" when moving the controllers, I've never used Mach3 but what I like it about it, is that u can see where is the bit routin which it makes it look more like idk impressive... so when ppl come by and see all the controllers and stuff they think you're using somethin professional thats my poin of view its just luxury...I have the CNC shark Pro Plus and I dont want to be strugglin with problems that I cant get it work on or ect... Im just gonna stick with the "CNC Shark Control Panel" and wait for new updates....
well the new update of the "CNC Shark Control Panel" I liked it with the option of the "step" when moving the controllers, I've never used Mach3 but what I like it about it, is that u can see where is the bit routin which it makes it look more like idk impressive... so when ppl come by and see all the controllers and stuff they think you're using somethin professional thats my poin of view its just luxury...I have the CNC shark Pro Plus and I dont want to be strugglin with problems that I cant get it work on or ect... Im just gonna stick with the "CNC Shark Control Panel" and wait for new updates....
ER