Loading request...
Users express significant frustration over the high cost, inefficiency, and lack of standardization for CNC post-processors. They argue that machine manufacturers should provide these free of charge, similar to 3D printer slicers, or that a widely adopted industry standard for post-processors should be established. This would reduce reliance on expensive third-party solutions, improve workflow efficiency, and ensure compatibility with proprietary machine features.
It doesn't make any sense to me that CNC post processors cost money. It's like selling a piece of PC hardware and then saying, "Oh wait, you actually want to use it? That will be another $10k, we have to develop the drivers." This is an oversimplification of course, and CNC mills are significantly more complicated than computer keyboards, but I think the point stands. In 3D printing the equivalent is slicer software. It's free, it's provided by the vendor directly or a 3rd party and oh, by the way, if you just want to skip the slicer step and print something someone else has already sliced there's a file format specifically designed to carry all of the outputs in a code format that will drive your specific machine (just ask Duann Scott). I understand that CNC machines are complex, but what we're talking about here is a translation issue. Why isn't there an interstitial file format common to all CAM software that is converted to machine specific G-code by software developed by machine tool vendors? -I know enough to be dangerous in the world of CNC but am not an expert. If there is something I am missing here, please tell me in the comments! -