Before I even start the trial I’d like to know if it’s plasma ready yet?
I don’t see any mention of plasma in anything I’ve read yet.
Mostly interested in what post processors are included, will it support floating heads and THC’s?
You can already use the Custom GCode device profile in LightBurn to control a plasma
Very lacking though and this question was specific to Millmage
MillMage is for rotary tool machines; you’ll be disappointed trying to use it for a plasma device because its actually farther away from working than LightBurn is. It’s simply not made for plasma.
We certainly haven’t ruled out a plasma-specific piece of software in the future, but right now your best option is to use Custom GCode, enter your THC GCode commands into the Custom GCode profile, and be off to the races in LightBurn.
Full details here: Device Settings: Custom GCode - LightBurn Documentation
1 Like
Interesting. Plasma support was mentioned many times when Millmage was talked about.
So now you’re saying Millmage will never do plasma and another software will be made specifically for plasma? Or we’ll just have to wait for plasma support to be added to Millmage?
MillMage is for spinning tools, LightBurn is for lasers, and can be made to work with Plasmas via Custom GCode. We do not have a software package for Plasma at this time. MillMage is not that software. I’d be eager to see where plasma support was mentioned, because it’s never been the case for MillMage, it’s always been intended for spinning tools.
2 Likes
MillMage is for tool change operations.
Lightburn is for cutting/burning stuff.
Which one do you think is more suited to a plasma torch?
Not gonna go searching for all the posts about it but I’ll post this one because it’s mine.
Note the last post.
So CNC mills/routers only do tool change operations??
You must not be very familiar with plasma but any cnc can also be a plasma cutter.
Not my words. I was only illustrating the difference between machining concepts.
I worked as a plant technician in a metalworking machine shop under a 10 acre roof. Very familiar. It is the machine operating software and hardware that makes the difference. The difference is in how the GCode is fed to the machine, RS-232, RS-485, USB, Ethernet, and recently WIFI, and whether it is plain text or ancodes.
The user @bLouChip is already running his plasma cutter with LightBurn, and can likely give you some feedback on how it’s been to set up and work with. The Generic GCode profile in LightBurn was created to allow people to use LightBurn with different machines, including plasma.
2 Likes
LightBurn doesn’t officially support plasma cutting yet, but they’re working on it. As for post processors, there are a few options, though you may need to tweak one for plasma. Floating heads and THC aren’t fully supported either, but it’s something they’re looking into.
1 Like
How the gcode is fed isn’t relevant as long as it gets there. Makes no difference between a mill or plasma.
So if you are familiar you should know the real difference is Z control.
Plasma needs constant Z control (same as a mill) whereas lasers do not.
So the answer to your question is Millmage would be the better option for a plasma cutter.
And yes, I know, LB has Z control. But it’s very lacking and minimal at best.
I actually converted a laser to a plasma cutter, it worked fine with LB but no where near ideal. So I taught the owner to use Fusion and added a axis to it. Works great now. Even with the Z axis LB couldn’t do what was needed with the Z unless I added the gcode myself which is retarded to even think these days. Kinda like using the custom gcode, I’d rather just use Fusion instead.
But the bottom line is Millmage will support plasma’s so it’s just a matter of time. Even if the “team” doesn’t know that yet, they will.
Pretty sure he’s moved on from LB for plasma but maybe he still does. Can’t remember where but he posts on other forums and I think he’s using something else now.
Could be wrong though.
I think we are beating this subject to death, but if I remember correctly, our plasma Zaxis was controlled by the plasma arc current, independent of X/Y controller. The surface is flat so there is no need for Zaxis programmed travel. Anyhow, CNC is CNC (Contour Numerical Control) so you can adapt lots of machines to it.
1 Like
For reference, here is his latest, from a March 10th post in response to you.
My 2 cents based on actual weekly use of LB on my grbl CNCs for milling, plasma, and laser…
LB latest V1.7 enables 100% grbl CNC plasma workflow as CAD/CAM, including the use of a floating torch mount to set initial torch height per cut and a THC. However, there are inconvenient aspects to the setup and workflow when material thickness and/or type (mild steel, AL, SS) changes since gcode to account for such changes are not parameterized in LB’s UI for laser cut settings; simply put, plasma cut and toolpath parameters are a superset of those typical of laser CNC. Thus these plasma specific cut parameters and toolpath functions are hard coded in the LB Generic GCode device profile. Further, LB is not well suited with it’s current UI to make leadin/leadout edits to contours nor does it do well with alternating the direction of cut in nested contours in some cases. I am a big fan of LB for laser, and as CAD for plasma. I continue to test LB as CAD/CAM for plasma process and workflow to share setup solutions and artifacts, as noted in the post @Rick references.
However, for reasons cited above, I use Sheetcam day in and day out for convenient workflow as it relates to CAM for CNC plasma process. A fully supported plasma CAM will provide for all the necessary cut parameters and toolpath rules and editing to enable quality, repeatable, and predictable plasma cuts, which has process (work) savings downstream from the plasma cutting itself. I use LB for CAD as it’s far easier to use than most other 2D CAD, I already know it and use it for laser, and it simply can’t be beat for artsy/crafty type projects in terms of function and speed to get to dxf. I use a 3D CAD (Onshape) that supports sheetmetal modeling when I have engineering projects requiring drawing dimensions and constraints, or require bends//brakes on 3D parts.
Perhaps the choice of software used comes down to a preference of comfort zone in terms of efficiency of the workflow and cut quality of parts produced. I suspect we all desire to be most efficient and produce the highest quality necessary for the task, and that doesn’t always equate to all of us using the same CAD/CAM software, even for the same use cases.
3 Likes
Yes, you’re referring to a THC. Some use step/dir, others use up/down.
What I’m referring to is if you have to cut a square with four circles in it, the z axis will need to retract to a safe height from one circle to the next and then the square itself.
Do that in LB. Can’t natively. Again, you can manually edit gcode or use the custom gcode but that ridiculous.
Sure this can be added to a future version of LB but why do that when Millmage already does it. It’s really 98% ready for plasma already.