Can we add a 3rd and possibly a 4th Bit Zero options. I appreciate what value the BitZero V2 offers however it has also introduced some limitations to setting zero. It would therefore be helpful to have a 3rd option that excepts custom XYZ offsets that can be configured in setup.
The new V2 is great but it needs a corner. if you don’t have a corner you have to trick the CM by using the V1 method with the V2 plate set on the edge or cross hair. IE I cut a project out of a large board and simple move the project down to the next available spot, therefore there is no corner for the V2. I only have one edge and a cross hair mark. I have had jobs fail and I want an accurate restart point so I want the accuracy of a touch plate. Regardless of the reason, there have been great improvements and some limitation added. By adding a custom XYZ option you can remove all these limitations while keeping all the awesome features when they are available to be used be used.
We should not limit the user in their method and shouldn’t suggest tricks and work arounds.
So I suggest there be some clean options to set zero
V1 Plate, V2 Plate, Custom XYZ Profile3, and Custom XYZ Profile 4.
We now have the best of all worlds and you can sell me both the V1 and the V2, they both have their advantages. I personally want to extend the wires to a quick plug so I can quickly pick between plates, V1 or V2, the right plate for the right job.
I love the CM however I am being forced in to look at other alternatives as this is show stopper limitation to me. Sorry, I am currently looking into CNCjs or Gsender.
Disclaimer: this is only my personal opinion, I don’t know what C3D strategy is on this particular topic. As far as I can tell, the essence of Carbide Create and Carbide Motion has always been to propose a single workflow that supports C3D devices well, to have a coherent software/hardware ecosystem AND not have to support the many other miscellaneous devices when something goes wrong, it’s hard enough as it is. Once you introduce the ability to use custom probes for example, you can’t really tell people “sorry, you are using my software but not my probe, I won’t provide support”. The logical conclusion is that once you outgrow CM, you can move to a generic g-code sender that you can then tune to do specifically what you need. I don’t think CM will ever be as configurable some folks would like, precisely because more configurability = more combinations to support. They do integrate new features regularly, but I’m sure it’s always a struggle for them to decide which ones will add value while not opening pandora’s box at the same time.
Anyway I’m rambling but my point is, if you think you will need more of those specific behaviors in your workflow in the future, migrating to CNCjs or gSender is not a bad move for you, it will let you do more custom things at the expense of developing your own macros and a less integrated workflow. I like to use either CM or CNCjs depending on the job at hand.
That said, I’m not saying this request won’t be considered and I’m in no position to say anything about that, just wanted to let you know what I think CM’s place in the g-code senders scene is.
By the by, I resort to a very low-tech solution for always being able to go back to my original zeroes: writing down X and Y zero absolute values for my current job on a post-it note. This has saved me countless times.
While it’s not supported, you can lie to the software about which probe you have and then probe as for a v1 along an axis but actually use a v2 — just don’t let them know at support if you have any problems doing this, or you forget to set back to a v2 before doing a corner probe.
@Julien Thanks Great advise about simply writing down, sometimes low tech is the best way
I get it on the support thing, one would think people would understand that if you are doing something different or third party, it would not be supported.
My point is more that in this case it was supported as a method and now it is not. And yes most people have just said well you trick it. But Hmmmm. and it is just a touch probe. it just grounds out the sig line, this is just more about the shape and the alignment of the plate or the ability to have different plates to match the job. But hey I put my request in.
I am curious since the topcom probe uses n/c circuit if the new Warthog electronics on the HDM might support such a probe as the limit switches for the HDM I believe are n/c.
Fingers crossed something is in the works for that platform. Most people would love to own a C3D active probe if they will produce one.
It needs the left bottom corner…I’m assuming someone has asked for this, but can we also do a single xyz probe on the top right, top left and bottom right corner?
I personally want to extend the wires to a quick plug so I can quickly pick between plates, V1 or V2, the right plate for the right job. 
