BitZero 2 Orientation

Someone please correct me if I’m out to lunch here, but it seems due to software limitations, the BitZero 2 is really only practical for a full prob cycle if used on the front left of the stock being probed.

After the probe finishes probing X and Y, it moves up, then back and right to probe the top.
Depending on that corner you’re trying to zero on, this moves the bit away from the probe.

It would be useful if the software prompted for the probe orientation before probing, making the full sequence work from any corner.

1 Like


If you want to do a different corner then you have to probe 3 times, once for each axis, repositioning for Z.

I know how to work around the limitation. I posted the feature request here so that I don’t have to do a work around every time.

Maybe Carbide should consider open sourcing Carbide motion. I’ve not seen any post on this form that leads me to believe Carbide is very open to acting on feature suggestions. There is a lot of untapped potential in the software.

There are a lot of opensource Grbl communication/control programs — if you wish to work on the source of one, I’m sure that the developers of them would be glad of the assistance.

So if you’re not interested in suggestions to improve your software, why have the feature request channel?

1 Like

You seem a bit rash with your observations. There were 8 feature requests that came in last month, almost all of which have more discussion surrounding them than yours, an issue that has a work around. With all the the posts you’ve searched through I’m sure you’ve noticed the issues C3D had rolling out the pro 5 model. I would assume all their interest is currently focused on smoothing out that product. You asked for source code, Will provided you with some options and you snap back like a scolded 5 year old.

These guys clearly work hard to support owners of their machines, something else you should have seen in your viewing of this forum.

1 Like

Stability of the software is definitely more important that my feature requests.

When I suggested open sourcing so people could contribute, I got pushed to go look at other programs. That’s not really a feasible option.

I put in an effort to clearly document and visualize the issue and provide a potential solution. I’m not asking that it be prioritized above anything else especially fixing issues, I’d just like the feel like it would be considered and not just brushed off.

The feature request is not being brushed off — this is a request which has been made in the past, and we have it noted as such.

The request to opensource Carbide Motion has been made before, and it’s not going to happen, and is not up for discussion. If you want opensource, use one of the many programs which are.


Rather than open source, how about opening up some of the features? Like the internal tool library in CM, the Toolchange, End of Program, bitzero subroutines, Quick Jog positions, etc…
If the bitzero subroutine was visible a user could copy it & make their own NW, NE & SE corner routines. Even a center of stock routine (for conductive material or integrated touch probe)
We could also add our own tools to the CM tool library so the behavior is the same as the built-in tools.

Might as well lobby for the same thing for CC. Tool library, posts…

1 Like

i wont lie i would love for that to happen but i doubt it ever will because then if someone calls in for help, support would immediately need to check if the person had screwed with that stuff, which would open up endless rabbit holes of causes for errors.

keeping the sandbox locked down keeps up reliability in terms of what can cause an issue.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.