![]() ![]() ![]() Consider the Siemens A2100 control, used on machines like the Cincinnati Arrow. Lest we think this is because machines are only recently powerful enough to allow Windows to work for CNC, let’s understand that building controllers on Windows is not even all that new an idea. Okuma’s THINC ®-OSP control is Windows-based… They tout their resulting open architecture as a big advantage, and THINC-OSP even lets you install apps as a result of its Windows underpinnings. We know that because there are many successful industrial CNC controls that are built on Windows. Okuma’s THINC ®-OSP control is Windows-based, for example. It turns out the idea that an industrial grade CNC controller can’t be built on top of Windows is false. How severe is this criticism of Mach3 and Windows? There are various other arguments against Mach3, such as the idea that the servo closed loop isn’t accessible to Mach3, but the big issue is the real time operating system issue. The logic goes on to say that because Windows is not a real time operating system, it’ll never be able to do industrial grade work. Many a forum post has carried the derisive view that Mach3 can’t be an industrial grade control because you can’t build “industrial grade” on top of Microsoft Windows. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |