DDSCV1.1 3 and 4 axis offline motion controller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAZZCNC

WTF!!! . . . Who wants to feck about with all this shite when all you have to do is buy real controller that works and provides enough motor outputs to do the job correctly.! . . . Cum-on lets keep it real.!

This particular controller lacks 4 Axis linear movement and shouldn't be bought for machine which requires it simple as that. If folks want to force into something it's not then more fool them.

The rest of it's short cummings are yet to be found and may well be trivial who knows. But in my eyes not following strict protocols like Fanuc standard is putting it on very dodgy ground straight off the bat.!

Surely the whole point offline controller is to limit hassle not introduce new ones which there is NO assitance or help from the only people who can fix the problem.!

And Boyan you can't take out of the equation starting the PC because without the PC your bonkers method can not home.! . . So yes it's very much part the equation if the PC's not on when need to home and if you need it on to use the machine WTF the point of using Offline Controller.?
(Please don't give me "reliabilty" has the reason because I've built more than my fair share of PC based systems that run without any issues and have been running perfectly fine for several years with thousands of hours cutting time under there belts.!)

---

Cool down please. It works, it costs mere 150euro. That's it. Plus its 500kz and plus that its 4 axis. No PC.


I start the pc cause i am lazy enough to adjust a hard stop and anyway my machine was prepared and designed for easy hardstop squaring. And anyways my pc is sitting there cause all my PC are connected so when i design the file on my main PC i go to garage and there load it to USB. So its always on, plus i have it already.


If not happy then pay 300 for you loved CSMIO and move each axis separately. What? I forgot. It does not square long axis. What? if it drives 2 long motors on long axis you could not use it for A axis.. What? it can noth thread on 4rth axis.

Like you said, going in circles. if you don't like it don't use it. No need to throw this down in a box. Put it on sale here and i guarantee you that you will sell it same day.



I heard a lot of blah blah in this thread but let me tell you again something. My time is money. If your time is not. I have no time fiddling with crappy boards and software or windows, cause 500 pieces wait for me in the garage to be done, i have at least 5 serious projects that need my attention and so on... Only the time the controller saved me last 3 weeks by just pushing the start button and all work flawlessly, if i charge 20 euro per hour i have payed the controller already and again...


And remember here what i say: You can not fight with Chinese industry. They will make a better controller, cheaper and so on. At one moment in time they will sell at least 1000:1 ratio to any other controller on market or software. So the only thing then will be that other maker pretend their stuff is better and better supported and so on. But in reality they will be losing the business.

So you need a PC to home both sides? are you having laugh????
If you are doing this just to home, then you may as well set the servo driver up to have second mode to jog in a direction from an input.
Its quite simple if the servo driver supports it.

However you are stuffed if you are using steppers, that most people will be on this controller.
When i home my machine, i tell it to home and it homes, it homes using the index pulse, so i know it is very accurate, the way you are doing it is not accurate. So if your time does not cost you any money, and you dont mind the hassle or dont need accuracy, then fill your boots.
However if i told a customer that is how he should home, the gantry, he would laugh at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

At the moment i move gantry to the end and hit limit switch. back off till LED lights. Then via PC and servo control software jog other motor to same position. 1 min job, if i dont count starting the PC .


Till now no problem with driving 2 motors from one output even on long, fast and generally quite serious jobs. But now i agree here- that i can be sure only and if i test 100 controllers and they show same consistency. Soon will know as another one is on the way. tHhis time the 4 axis one.

Another thing is that i have not seen a single person use its 4rth axis so its still a mystery there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary

However if i told a customer that is how he should home, the gantry, he would laugh at me.

---

More importantly he'd walk away laughing in big rush to tell his mates.!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

Cool down please. It works, it costs mere 150euro. That's it. Plus its 500kz and plus that its 4 axis. No PC.

---

Boyan in no way am I getting hot or botherd about this so I'm Cool buddy. Infact the irony of your homing routine made me laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

I heard a lot of blah blah in this thread but let me tell you again something. My time is money. If your time is not. I have no time fiddling with crappy boards and software or windows, cause 500 pieces wait for me in the garage to be done, i have at least 5 serious projects that need my attention and so on... Only the time the controller saved me last 3 weeks by just pushing the start button and all work flawlessly, if i charge 20 euro per hour i have payed the controller already and again...

---

Said this before and I'll say it again. " It's Poor Work Man that Blames is Tools".
How the Hell do you think other people who are and have been using PC based Controllers make money.? And I'm not talking Mach3 I'm talking all PC based Controller/hardware.
Do you think they would tolerate Down time or Crashes etc that you seem inflict upon your self. No Bloody way would they or should they.!

Mach3/hardware combination alone as allowed 1000's Business's to work Flawlessly for years and earn Millions of $$$ do you think they would continue to buy Pc based controllers if they didn't.
Yes PC's can have issues and Mach3/4 certainly as some issues but when properly combined they can and do work flawlessly. But Both have Massive support network for when they don't, so just about most issues which relate to THEM can be resolved.

Now where it goes wrong is the "POOR WORKMAN" instantly blames the tool. Often it's Mach3 that gets slated first then he'll turn on the PC. 99% time it's his own tight fistedness or lazyness that's the real problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

If not happy then pay 300 for you loved CSMIO and move each axis separately. What? I forgot. It does not square long axis. What? if it drives 2 long motors on long axis you could not use it for A axis.. What? it can noth thread on 4rth axis.

---

No I'd fit controller that was correct for the machine and not try to force controller to do job it was never built to do.
The Cslabs Controller you refer to is the IP-M which I wouldn't and Don't fit to machines that require Slaved Motors. In this case I would either use different manufacturer or if the machine warrented it I'd fit the more expensive controller.

Let me say it again so you and others understand me.! . . Or don't Missunderstand me.!!!

I'm not saying Offline controllers are not good or welcome tool. They are and I'm sure will be the future.

However these Cheaper end controllers clearly have some limitations and worse still at this time nobody really knows to what extent. So caution is needed by those on budgets or of less experience.
It's this and in this particular case Boyan your premature hailing of these controllers as All singing and dancing "Must have" piece of hardware while at same time pathetic attempt at rubbishing other long standing proven hardware that makes my temp start to rise slightly.

PC based controller/hardware like Mach3 will be around for many years to come in some form or other. Yes they will have to change because PC's are changing but they will follow and adapt. Yes they will become fewer because Offline or embedded controllers will take over for sure.

Offline controllers will evolve and very quickly I believe become the default machine controller. I have known this for few years now and I'm still waiting for cost affective reliable full spec one to arrive but this one sadly isn't it.!! . . . .Yet.

The lower priced Higher end offerings are better but for me personaly still don't have what I need in spec for the level of machine and people I provide to. The top end are out of reach on price.!

PC based shouldn't be rubbished so quickly and at the moment to me they are still the only reliable solution with good back up and support that offers full CNC functionality without costing lot of money.

Also remember you'll still be buying a PC because without it 99% of you can't run the machine.???? . . . . . The 1% who botherd to learn G-code could to some limited degree and the other 0.1% who learnt to advanced level could make do exactly what they wanted, eventually given enough time. Remember time is Money.!!

Those who bought this controller couldn't however because it has no MDI or way to manually enter code.!

The fact is PC's will be around or involved in CNC just for there Software capabiltys because without most of you are stuffed.!

Now time really is money and I need to make some so off to make lovely chips late into the night.!! . . . Have nice day Boys. . .:thumsup:

Quote:

---

I heard a lot of blah blah in this thread but let me tell you again something. My time is money. If your time is not. I have no time fiddling with crappy boards and software or windows,

---

I set up my machine 7 years ago, and haven't touched it since.
People like to complain about Windows, but Windows does not cause any problems with running CNC machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicniner

Quick reply is not seeing my space bar! ????

What I was trying to post was, what if you used a high impedance input buffer circuit on all controller outputs to isolate them from the motor driver inputs with twin buffers on one output to run two drivers?

- Nick

---

My reason for posting this technical query was not to suggest that it was a solution to anything but to see if it obviated the issues to which you alluded, but which you were unwilling to define in a clear enough way that anyone reading the thread might glean or address their actual nature ;-)

I was really hoping for an answer such as "that would work" or "that wouldn't work because...." but I'm feeling my way in the dark here due to the lack of technical background to the "timing differences" problem description, I mean I'm not daft but give us a clue! :D

- Nick

I can see these controllers filling a niche market.
They are going to appeal to the home build user with one of a couple of machines. Probably smaller machines that don't need the bumph of having a PC and monitor connected.

As Jazz says you will still need a PC for doing programming but that doesn't have to be in the workshop.
The PC could even be a Mac running Fusion 360 and in this case that computer won't run the machine anyway.

As long as all you need is 3 + 1 axis, no slaved axis or provision for tool change then these will run fine. Especially if all you want to do is produce parts.

Anything else then at the moment the PC is king but this will change as does most things. Speaking with Art Fenerty the other week he mentioned that there have been issues with Mach 3 running on later computers not being able to read some of the system files as late machines don't use these files and they don't bundle them with them.
Not an insurmountable problem at the moment but it could be later on.

Mach 4 is a work in progress and it makes me wonder if it will ever be a plug and play program given that it can't stand on it's own and requires a 3rd party controller to run and Brian has no control over these.

Because my current area of interest is lathes and threading at the moment I have done a lot of research. With mach 3 CS Labs can thread, it's the only one that can but the thread always has a big run off groove which on small threads is not acceptable. They say Mach 4 if they do a plug in will be the same.

Mach 4 can now thread with the Pokeys 57CNC and Dan Maulch over in the States has literally spent 6 months of his life getting it to run. Why ?

Why hasn't this been done by Mach4 working with Pokeys and released by them?

This was one reason I went with the NEW990TD-b because it can thread straight out the box and was the best option for me.

Note the ME bit because we all have different agenda's.

There isn't one controller option out there be it PC or stand alone that ticks all the boxes. Eaach has it's own niche market and you have to look and see what you want and what's available.

These DSCV controller are cheap and they will fill a gap in the cheap end of the market, it's that simple but they won't do everything and if you can accept that and live with it then I can't see any problems.

Quote:

---

Mach 4 can now thread with the Pokeys 57CNC and Dan Mauch over in the States has literally spent 6 months of his life getting it to run. Why ?

Why hasn't this been done by Mach4 working with Pokeys and released by them?

---

I seriously doubt that Mach4 will be anywhere nearly as successful as Mach3 was. I don't think that Brian really knows what his customers needs are.
I bought a license two years ago, but haven't downloaded any updates in over a year. I've given up on it, after waiting over 5 years.
It's still far from finished, riddled with bugs, and dependent on 3rd parties, some of which don't exactly have a good track record.
Brian likes to say that he's been making parts with Mach4 for years, but the reality is that it's not usable for most, even after all this time.
It's also incredibly complex to setup and customize, which imo will be a support nightmare for them.
As of right now, it seems like most of their customers are beginners, who have never used Mach3, but by Mach4 because it's Mach3's replacement, so it must be better, right ? :sorrow:

Yes, I agree, that these controllers are great for people with low budgets, and basic needs.

But sorely lacking if you want to do any type of customization.

My eggs are now all in the UCCNC basket.
Developers that listen to their users.
Constant updates, quick bug fixes.
Nearly as flexible as Mach3, and getting better all the time.
Better motion than Mach3, especially at higher speeds.
The downsides?
No lathe support at this time.
No "Industrial" controllers, but is that really necessary? They were working on one a while ago, but put it on hold due to time constraints. Hopefully it will re-appear at some time.
http://www.forum.cncdrive.com/viewto...=2&t=169#p1039

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ger21

I don't think that Brian really knows what his customers needs are.

---

It's a classic case of buying a company that could make you a fortune and killing support for your best product before you have anything new, that isn't broken, to sell.

He could make a really good start with a fully functional 4-axis product in exchange for a license fee rather than his current Subscription Vapourware Beta Testing Scheme :D

Brian has lost my custom, I bought Mach3 but won't be buying Mach4.

The price for a commercial Mach4 license plus a good motion controller gets close enough to a commercial grade stand-alone controller from China that the only thing keeping New Fangled Solutions going is the ignorance of their potential customers to the options available!

- Nick

Quote:

---

the only thing keeping New Fangled Solutions going is the ignorance of their potential customers to the options available!

---

Yes, Imo, most people using (or attempting to use) Mach4 are not Mach3 users, but people that know Mach3 was used by everyone, and think that Mach4 must be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicniner

The price for a commercial Mach4 license plus a good motion controller gets close enough to a commercial grade stand-alone controller from China that the only thing keeping New Fangled Solutions going is the ignorance of their potential customers to the options available!

---

But what support do you get with the Chinese controller?
.
I can kind of understand the direction Brian has taken NFS/Mach4.
Mach3 was ultimately developed by a hobbyist, for hobbyists, but it grew far bigger than anybody imagined, and was used for things Art has even admitted, he never even thought it would.
Brian on the other hand knows the potential of the industrial market, and he is providing that market what they want. A highly customisable solution with full support. In doing so I think it's fair to say he hasn't given the hobbyist market as much support as he could have.
Mach 4 is a better product than Mach 3, however it doesn't have anywhere near the same community or vendor support, and there are lots of other options available now that simply weren't when Mach 3 was the defacto hobbyist option.
Certainly now that KMotionCNC has a screen editor, I don't see me switching to Mach 4, but I'll still keep running my little probing machine on Mach 3, just for the Probe-It probing plugin.

Quote:

---

but I'll still keep running my little probing machine on Mach 3, just for the Probe-It probing plugin.

---

I believe that the author of the Probe It is porting it to UCCNC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ger21

I believe that the author of the Probe It is porting it to UCCNC.

---

Not much use to me though, as my probing machine runs a KFlop+KStep with linear scales to close the loop, to get as much accuracy as possible. :-/
.
Ger, do you happen to know the Macro/program refresh rate for the UCNC software?
I know Mach3 is 10Hz, Mach 4 is fair bit quicker but depends on system load, and KFlop depends entirely on how you program it but can potentially be 90uS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicniner

The price for a commercial Mach4 license plus a good motion controller gets close enough to a commercial grade stand-alone controller from China that the only thing keeping New Fangled Solutions going is the ignorance of their potential customers to the options available!

- Nick

---

I still follow the Mach support forums on their web site and the Yahoo groups and there are still plenty of posts about erratic behavior with Smooth stepper and also Pokeys.

Mach 4, unlike mach 3 is no longer a self contained program as the parallel port operation in Mach 4 is very limited and mach 4 needs an external controller to run.
This means Brian no longer has any control over a full system and so far Mach and any of the external controller manufacturers has bothered to bundle the two products up for an easy install.

Being interested in Lathe I have been following Dan Maulch's journey to get mach4 working with the Pokeys57CNC board.
It looks like he has finally got it working after 6 months or so with a lot of help from Pokeys and seemingly none from Mach 4 but why has he had to do this ? He's not being paid by Pokeys or Brian ?

Last year at the CNC conference near Detroit Ron Ginger set a workshop up to convert 10 or 12 Hi-torque lathes to run off Mach 4 and pokeys with a box built by Arturo Duncan at CNC4PC, I believe the box cost around $900.
According to Ron everyone left the workshop with a working lathe but only one person has posted since then about their machine and that was to say that due to issues with Mach 4 he couldn't get his machine running and so far it still isn't running.

Not one person posted a video? and Ron will not show a finished thread?

But using the plug ins that were available at the Workshop Dan Maulch could not get a lathe to thread, It took quite a few upgrades to the plug in before Dan's machine could work.

Personally i can't get mach 4 to run on my desktop machine, it won't run code generated by Mach3 even though a Chinese Fanuc clone will run the same file with no problem. It comes up with error messages saying it's running in the wrong plane even though G18 is in the startup line and others have reported the same and still no answer from Mach 4 support.

2 / 3 weeks ago Dan finally got his pendant working with Pokeys and posted how to do it. Quite a long convoluted post, to set this up.
I decided to see if the supplied pendant would work with the NEW990TD-b controller so took the pendant, plugged it into the back by it's 25 pin plug and what do you know, ? it worked.

Art when he handled Mach 3 had a whole different ball game. He listened to what people had to say, wasn't afraid to admit mistakes and go back to rectify them and mainly he was able to work smart,

Since retiring he's written Gearotic V1.0, V2.0 and is now on V3.0. He has written Auggie which is a 3 D printer and laser motion controller, a lot like M3 and Brain still hasn't managed to get mach4 reasonably stable.

Sorry for me, far too little and far too late.

UCCNC has 48 macroloops, which are similar to mach3's macropump. These apparently run independently, and can be any speed you want. There's an example in the manual for running at 20Hz. Apparently, the faster they run, the higher the CPU loading?
They don't mention the screen refresh, but it's independent of the macros, and appears to be much faster than mach3, as the DRO's are much smoother. The toolpath display is different, so hard to compare. But the entire interface seems much faster.

Quote:

---

According to Ron everyone left the workshop with a working lathe but only one person has posted since then about their machine and that was to say that due to issues with Mach 4 he couldn't get his machine running and so far it still isn't running.

Not one person posted a video? and Ron will not show a finished thread?

---

A friend of mine has one of those lathes, but hasn't had time to use it. Last time I talked to him, he said there were still issues with the speed control due to either the Pokeys or the speed control board they are using, from CNC4PC I think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m_c

But what support do you get with the Chinese controller?
.

.

---

A very good question and a very valid one.
This depends on controller.
If we are talking about the DSCV cheap controller then none, all the vendors want to do is take your money and pass the buck.
What will happen in time though is there will become a users self help forum or forums where people can share problems. This happens now over the internet with any product. I have just had problems with my central heating boiler and all the help came from outside of the manufacturer.

The more expensive ones like the 990 series is a lot better.
For a start these are not new. they have been used in China for the domestic market for 8 plus years so by now the rough edges should be missing ?

If you pay more and buy from Adtech or GSK then you can expect good support but that's why you pay more.

For most psrt it's not support but understanding the controller.
In my case on a couple of things I wasn't sure off, and the book was wrong but the edited copy is on the internet already, I went down to a CNC place local to me and got one of their guys to explain what was what.

He runs 3 machines, a Fanuc 21, a Haas and a DMG but even though they have three proprietary controllers they all work the same.

TBH I can see the support issues with these stand alones being far less than having to link a PC to a controller to an external controller and probably throw a conversion board into the mix.

The lathes at the CNC workshop has a PC of unknown vintage, Mach 4, Pokeys 57CNC controller and a box from arturo Duncan to connect it all up so when it doesn't work who do you go to ?
Dell / HP ?, Mach 4?, Pokeys?, or Arturo ?

All of whom just want to pass the buck.

Most people want to use a machine, not play with it and they want plug and play. As soon as two components get thrown into the ring it's not plug and play.

I bought a K-Flop a while ago as having been told it can do lathe which it can IF you are able to program in C++

So it stands on the shelf with the rest of the very expensive components that promise the earth but never deliver.

I thought its absolutely obvious - DDCSV is a cheap controller meant for 3+1 and is absolutely fabulous for a 3 axis machine due to the fact that it works at all for 150 euro. Especially good for a cheap machine. I thought also i am conversing with grown men that need not explaining that if i have spend 7000-8000 euro on my machine on parts only, i can afford to buy 1000euro controller that can home correctly.

The reason playing with Pokeys and all these controllers was to test for myself the cheaper options, so i choose a controller for future cheap machines.

But while you are laughing many people will retrofit it on 3 or 4 axis mills and this will seriously undermine the market for EU made and USA made stuff for DIY. Will see who laughs after 2 years.

Plus now that i have found the good expensive controllers for 500 euro from manufacturer, per piece, not wholesale price, it will be interesting to see how CSMIO will sell after an year or 2 their controllers for 900 euro, even if the offer all the support in the world.

When i go at ebay i hit "lowest price+lowest shipping first" , don't you :toot: . The other day was checking 3d printers. On every Prusa sold there are 500 sold from China, from each of the 20 manufacturers. Just a fact. I am not saying anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ger21

UCCNC has 48 macroloops, which are similar to mach3's macropump. These apparently run independently, and can be any speed you want. There's an example in the manual for running at 20Hz. Apparently, the faster they run, the higher the CPU loading?
They don't mention the screen refresh, but it's independent of the macros, and appears to be much faster than mach3, as the DRO's are much smoother. The toolpath display is different, so hard to compare. But the entire interface seems much faster.

---

Thanks for that Gerry. I did have a quick look through the UCNC manual, but couldn't find anything, and a quick search of the forum mentioned a macro manual which I couldn't find a download link to. It was how quick macros could update inputs/outputs I was interested in. As long as the screen can tell me what I need to know at a reasonable speed, I'm not that interested in just how quickly it updates.
.
I've not got any plans to use any of their controllers, but I still like to know what the limitations are for whenever any questions come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John S

<snip>
I bought a K-Flop a while ago as having been told it can do lathe which it can IF you are able to program in C++

So it stands on the shelf with the rest of the very expensive components that promise the earth but never deliver.

---

Some very valid points regarding support.
One of the things I like about Dynomotion, is Tom (main man behind the company) is very responsive to any questions. Any bugs discovered are dealt with quickly. Only last week a bug was found in their new screen editor, and the fix was released today, which was actually pretty slow for them, but he had already posted a work around within a few hours, so a full fix wasn't urgent.
It's not unknown for him to release patches within a day to fix proven bugs.
.
Yes, they can be daunting to setup, but if you post up on the Yahoo group, or the cnczone forum, you'll get help. I've seen people with no programming background have their systems up and running within a couple days, which isn't bad by the time you factor in time for replies, and for the people to gather/post/test things.
.
For basic systems, the hardest part is the main configuration file (configures the KFlop with what axis outputs/inputs are needed), but there are sample files included, and for the axis configuration information, the KMotion configuration program can generate the required code for you to copy and paste in.
It's only when you want to start doing custom things that the C coding really kicks in, but there are plenty sample files included.
.
For a basic lathe, running Mach3, all you need is the main config file, with just the axis information for the two axis. Everything else can be handled in Mach 3. For KMotionCNC, with the new screen editor, simple things like flipping outputs with a button, can now be handled without having to write any C code.
However KFlops also suffer with the Mach3 slow pull out problem when threading. The problem is although Mach3 switches back from mm/rev to mm/min mode, it uses the mm/rev value as the mm/min value, so for a 2mm pitch thread, you get 2mm/min pull out, instead of the set federate.
KMotionCNC on the other hand doesn't. Provided you write the G-code correctly, it'll group together all the required synchronised moves, so you can pull out however you want.
Somebody posted an example not that long ago which involved a taper lead in to a parallel thread to a 45deg pullout.
The only requirement is you need a quadrature output encoder on the spindle. Single/multi-slot sensors won't work.
.
However, if you want to clear some shelf space, I'd buy the KFlop, as it can be handy having an extra one for testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

But while you are laughing many people will retrofit it on 3 or 4 axis mills and this will seriously undermine the market for EU made and USA made stuff for DIY. Will see who laughs after 2 years.

Plus now that i have found the good expensive controllers for 500 euro from manufacturer, per piece, not wholesale price, it will be interesting to see how CSMIO will sell after an year or 2 their controllers for 900 euro, even if the offer all the support in the world.

---

Things could be very different in two years.
Every chance the Euro could very well implode by then, along with China's artificially deflated economy.
.
I've got a friend who works in materials import and export, and he reckons it's just a case of when, not if, the Chinese economy causes major problems. Brexit has caused him enough headaches already, but I think he fully expects to be out of work for a long time once China loses grip on inflation, and global demand plummets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m_c

Things could be very different in two years.
Every chance the Euro could very well implode by then, along with China's artificially deflated economy.

---

Things could be very different in two weeks time if that lunatic Trump wins in few hours time.!!!:devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAZZCNC

Things could be very different in two weeks time if that lunatic Trump wins in few hours time.!!!:devilish:

---

Hopefullynot,comeonLee,fixthatquickreplyplease

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAZZCNC

Things could be very different in two weeks time if that lunatic Trump wins in few hours time.!!!:devilish:

---

You forgot to cross your fingers while you typed that! :-(

Hopefully, everything Trump said he wanted to do were lies, like everything else he said. :concern:

Please don't get too distracted by the nonsense that's just happened in the US, guys! I, for one, have been following this discussion with great interest, although I doubt that I shall be throwing out my Mach3/CSMIO setup any time soon. However, I recognise that that solution isn't the optimum as I have a slaved X axis machine and I still need to sort out homing problems with the IP/M because the IP/S, which does it properly, is too expensive. Maybe in future the answer will be one of these dedicated controllers.

There are definitely two classes of users here. One is the home/hobby user, like me. I'm fortunate in having a background in both electronics and computing, so wiring up and configuring these things, assuming that they have the basic functionality needed, isn't a big deal, and I can afford time more than money to get it all sorted. For me, the other type of user is the professional but small-scale user. Not the big organisations with the manpower and resources to sort problems, but the one-man kind of business. A friend of mine who runs a small business making signs and notice boards wanted to bring the engraving in house instead of subcontracting it to a local company (who weren't very good anyway). He bought a Chinese 600x900 router, although a rather better and more expensive version than some of the cheap ones around. He needs to be doing money-earning work, not fiddling about building a machine. Setting up the hardware was pretty easy, no problems there. However, the machine came with Mach3 (and he did buy a "proper" licence) plus a USB motion controller. Fortunately, I was able to help him get going. The half-day or so it took me would probably have taken him a week, assuming that he succeeded at all. He could have done with an install-and-forget solution, even at a slightly higher price. For the home user, once the dedicated box becomes cheaper than buying all the separate bits and wiring them together, the choice will be equally obvious. I, for one, am looking to you experts to guide me as to what's becoming available:smile:

Interesting that there seems to be such a problem with lathe CNC, particularly threading. At first sight it doesn't sound like that big a problem but maybe it is - and the lathe CNC market is too small compared with 3/4-axis machines to be worth worrying about?

That is the problem, lathe is a very small market compared to routers and mills.

However it's a problem that I can't understand in some ways as we could thread with the Conect / Boxford / Denford machines on DOS and now we have far more powerful external motion controllers and computers but no one seems to be able to get it right out of the box ??

As John says, lathe is only a small part of the market. I can't remember if it was Art or Brian, but I'm sure their upper estimate was 10% of Mach users used turn, but more likely near 5%. And Mach is probably the most popular option for Turn applications.
.
I'm not sure why threading is so hard. I suspect the problem is how more modern controllers have been programmed to handle general motion, that when they get around to adding threading, it involves major changes, so it gets glued on as an after thought.
I'd guess the old DOS systems were a pretty basic system. Move x steps each time there's a pulse from the multislot sensor, adjust timing slightly if too fast/slow, and you have a thread. The benefit that style of controller had, was the hardware and software was the responsibility of one entity, and you didn't have to program in lots of different options, along with all the other usually pointless functionality that users think they must have.

Dare I say this there is always linuxcnc https://forum.linuxcnc.org/show-your...1350-rpm-m14x2 :cower:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clive S

Dare I say this there is always linuxcnc https://forum.linuxcnc.org/show-your...1350-rpm-m14x2 :cower:

---

Well it's got to be better than paying $200 for a license based on advertised functionality only to find they might make it work this year, next year, sometime, never.

If a few more of the developers of linuxcnc were experienced engineers and could see past their own assumed level of knowledge it would be the only option at this point in time ;-)

- Nick

And a GUI that doesn't look like Etch-a-Sketch on acid :emmersed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John S

And a GUI that doesn't look like Etch-a-Sketch on acid :emmersed:

---

Is this better https://forum.linuxcnc.org/show-your...lathe-retrofit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

Small update with video to follow:

Controller is mounted in my enclosure and after i spend yesterday all day playing with it, i could say- I like it and i am very happy with it.

Machines moves smoothly as ever at 10000/min and 3000 acceleration. Spindle speed is stable. Program time execution- same as using Mach3 or 4.


Manual has some confusing Chinglish elements as to be expected.




Probing works very well but needs some clarification:

First of all there are 2 types of probing:
Where tool position is at the moment or in Machine Coordinates the probes place on the machine could be predefined and probe or another probe mounted there.

Now the trick. It should be done once only.
Put a tool in collet, tighten it at hand but leave it a bit untightened so that if machine pushes it towards bed it will move inside the collet but at same time is not loose.
One must go to probing settings and make sure probe thickness is set to 0.000 and if not set it so and make sure probing is enabled and " at current tool position".
Then go back to control screen and start moving Z towards table. When you hit Z in table, bit will move a bit into collet. So now you are 0 to table in Working coordinates. Use commands and set Z to 0 in Working Coordinates on screen
M0ve Z up more distance than the probe is thick / by the way Z up is + and down is -, toward you Y is - and away from you is +, X left is -, X right is +, the so called right cartesian coordinate system/
Lay probe on table surface / current Z0/ . + of probe is connected to conductive probe material, minus to spindle body or bit, +should be isolated by other material like plastic from below/
hit "MODE2" then "-A" x 2 times and probing starts . When bit touches plate Z goes up depends how much you have predefined in probe settings. If you look now at probe setting you will see a number that may not be your probe thickness. DO NOT CHANGE THAT NUMBER. Its not wrong.

Now you can probe normally, control knows your real probe thickness, even if there is a loss of power.

PRECAUTIONS:
1. When changing G54 with other WCS you lose your probe thickness so you must do that again. Be Careful! Until you figure all out, raise the probe on a sponge.
2. If you program one of the external buttons that could be connected as 0 instead of "start" / when you hit it it zeroes all in WCS / , then when you zero from it, after that you again gave to repeat the probe thickness setting like from the start. I will investigate further but its start to seem that when you probe and 3 axis are zeroed right before that, that means it comprehends it like you want to set probe thickness, not like setting your Z WCS zero.


I will continue later with my findings. Now back to work.

---

Hi all, new in the forum....

Regarding the DDCSV1.1 chinese controller,

Is not really clear about the mode 1/mode2 of the Zprobe, i realize that if i setup the probe tool in mode2 with the correct height and current position it works
perfectly as i can measure mi tool with a caliper, so why i need to use the mode1?? (maibe i'm too thick to understand)...
And again, as the chinenglish manual is not clear at all, we all have to guess what is what....
Is someone can explain me the concept it would be great, thank you all
Regards

Its very simple. It assumes you have a zero setting gauge. You hit the gauge and move until is Zero there. Knowing that the gauge is 50mm high you zero the machine. When you hit zero Z, you enter 50mm and now machine knows where bed is. Next put whatever isolated probe on bed and hit Probe. Now it figures the probe thickness.

But hit a button that zeroes all 3 axis together and all of the above is lost. Does that make sense to you?


So lets chew it up again:

In order for you to use automated probing without any further hassle like above, one very simple modification should be made to machine. Mount your probe / VDC+/ on the machine directly, so that + does not touch bed in any way. So that probe surface must be actual table zero level. You can do that by pocketing your bed if metal, fit a plate there connected to +, epoxy it, wait to dry and surface it on bed level. You could even tell controller where that is so every time the probe goes there to check tool offset. or just buy 2 of the cheap 3 euro chinese spring probes from ebay and integrate one in bed.

So once you have that probe level with bed, you could either use another probe or use only this probe

edited: dont use the method i said here as i found a serious mistake from my part, in certain scenarios. Use the mechanical method described above or several post below.

Thank you so much for the kind reply, but as much as i tried i cannot find the way---
You should make a short video, because mode 1 and mode 2 have two different beheaviour, and even if i setup the fixed probe on the machine bed, still not working.

So for sure i do something wrong!!!!!
If you don't mind to write the steps one by one as in a manual with the setup of the mode and next step to follow that would help a lot.
is not clear in which mode you measure the bed zero, (1 or 2?) as my bed zero is at -140mm from the machine zero(which is positive up)
and every time you hit the zero button, it go up to zero the z axis and start again, but the odd number in the controller is always a strange number, it doesen't make any sense honestly..
In mode 2 when the controller is setup as "current position" and the tool gauge entered manually(caliper measured) i can measure the worktop but thats that :-(( and is the only way i can work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

if you have a nice machine its better to have flat table and take and program Z level in CAM from table level. Not material level. As what you do when in the middle of program machining surface is spoiled and no way to zero again there????t

---

Work Offsets allow you to have bed level as Machine Z-zero with the top of work as your Work Z-zero, that's what Work Offsets are for. ;-)

The professional CNC machinists I've spoken to tend to use a top of part/stock Z zero,

- Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicniner

Work Offsets allow you to have bed level as Machine Z-zero with the top of work as your Work Z-zero, that's what Work Offsets are for. ;-)

The professional CNC machinists I've spoken to tend to use a top of part/stock Z zero,

- Nick

---

Unfortunately DIY cnc machine will be always one step behind due to the lack of absolute encoders or scales that at all time tell the machine the exact position, even if power switched off. To rely on working offsets on a machine equipped with cheap chinese limit switches is ridiculous. As i said somewhere above on a couple of occasions i measured 0.4mm initial imprecision and now while browsing 3D printer stuff i found some reports that temperature also changes the situation..

Now the thing is that you are right in a way, cause on a DIY machine, nothing happens if 0.1-0.4mm things are not right when homed. But you could not continue aluminum job if power is cut or you need to reset steppers, i have tried that to no avail, at least a couple of times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyan Silyavski

Unfortunately DIY cnc machine will be always one step behind due to the lack of absolute encoders or scales that at all time tell the machine the exact position, even if power switched off.

---

That statement is true but is not relevant.

Having your bed as machine Z zero and using a work offset is no more complex than having your bed as work zero and setting the bottom of your stock as your Z zero in CAM, it doesn't require any fancy encoders or switches, it does require a little planning, but no more so than using a bottom of stock zero in CAM.

Having your bed as machine Z zero and using a work offset does have the considerable advantage that if machining or engraving a series of features in a surface you can do this on a variety of thicknesses of stock without having to refer to CAM to see what stock thickness you had set and then calculating a compensating offset ;-)

- Nick

Dangerous to use the bed as work zero.

What happens if your machine decides to go to Z 0 without switching the tool offset off ?

Bang cutter all the way though the work.

If the top of the work is Z0.0 then all cutting moves are negative, any positive Z moves are safe.

We are talking different machines here. Who uses tool offsets on non repeatable tool holder, like ER20 on a Chinese spindle????? Me not.

You are talking about mills and i am talking about routers.

In reality i use the work offset that suits me better for each separate job and have the good custom to mark that in my file name. like xxxxx 0vacfixt or xxxx0bed or 0top. I would have told that from the beginning but was just making a point here.

its obvious that i don't work in machine coordinates and use different coordinate systems G54 to G59. What i was saying above is that there is no point making fixtures and each fixture to have a predefined work offset, cause the machine anyway will not find properly the 0 just from homing without manually finding the zero.

or am i not explaining what i want to say?

Let's say it in another way. I use nothing complicated but every separate job i find the zero again and again not only in Z but X and Y also. All else is time wasting time on a DIY machine that every time runs totally different job

Quote:

---

To rely on working offsets on a machine equipped with cheap chinese limit switches is ridiculous.

---

I use DIY hall effect switches, which are supposedly accurate to .01mm or better. There's a thread on CNC Zone where the designer showed his testing for accuracy. Cost about $15 to make.

I've resumed jobs many times after homing, with no issues at all.