Printable View
Hi,
Considering one of these for a lathe. I need 3 axis control, Z, X and Turret.
https://www.cnc4you.co.uk/UC300
Does this allow me the following:-
0-10V for Spindle or do I need to use my RS485 via USB? Id like to use their software and ditch Mach at some point.
Z, X and Turret stepper control.
Usual limits
Threading? Can this be done with an encoder that provides an Index pulse?
Do I need to buy anything else for this board? PSU?
Thanks
It's not listed on the features, but this tells you what you need to know about threading and encoders - http://forum.cncdrive.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=299
I would highly recommend the ethernet version, along with the UB1 breakout board.
http://www.cncroom.com/interface-cards/uc300eth-ub1
Note that there is no "lathe" mode in UCCNC at this time.
For lathe use, I think the Centroid acorn may be the best hobby control right now.
Thanks Gerry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ger21
I did figure this out later once I did a bit more research.
Sounds like a reasonable device. The supplier I linked has doubts about UCCNC and prefers to keep using Mach 3 however it gives me options.
Gerry, does this board - https://www.cnc4you.co.uk/UC300 - need a Breakout board of sorts or is this all that is needed?
Yes, both the USB and ethernet UC300's need a breakout board. (or multiple breakout boards).
The ethernet UC300 is more powerful and faster than the USB version, and the cost is about the same.
Imo, UCCNC is much better than Mach3. Better trajectory planner, and mostly bug free. If you find a bug, they'll usually have it fixed in a few days.
It's missing some features that Mach3 has, but for most people, but they are features that most people don't use anyway.
Chaz if your converting lathe you want Centroid Acorn. Nothing else can touch it. Watch this.
http://www.centroidcnc.com/centroid_...ontroller.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=NjYaWOW1O8w
Thanks, spotted it too, looks good.
Will it allow me to use a rotary turret with some form of macro like Mach?
Yes I think it's already setup to do that but if not then it can be made to do it thru macros and the built in PLC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz
I've been able to do all that for the past 5 years on my lathe (and not have limited IO)... ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by JAZZCNC
The real benefit of Acorn would be the conversational programming, but you have to consider how often you'd use it.
It is something I thought I'd really miss when I dumped Mach3, but in the past 5 years, there's only be once where I've really missed having the ability. However nearly everything I do is repeat production, so I design it once on a computer, generate the G-code, and copy it to the lathe where it remains with just an occasional tweak if needed. If I was doing more one-off/repair parts on the CNC lathe, I'd of probably pulled my hair out by now.
To do that did it work straight out the box.? . . . How much C programming did you have to do to get it working how you wanted.?Quote:
Originally Posted by m_c
How stable is the Software, is it tried tested on Industrial strength machines.?
There's more to a product than just I/O in my book. Look how many all singing dancing stuffed to the gunnels with I/O motion controllers have failed or been less than popular ie: Kflop . . just because there software is hardwork or just plain lacking or bug ridden.
Sometimes somethings are worth paying little more for even if sometimes that means getting less IMO.!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAZZCNC
Does Centroid, or any controller work straight out the box with no programming or configuration?
FWIW, for CSS and rigid tapping, examples are provided, and there are instructions on how to configure the software, along with example G-code.
As I've previously admitted, it's never going to be the easiest of controllers to setup, as it's that versatile, but I certainly don't go around telling others it's what they should use while failing to mention it's shortfalls.
Out of curiosity, how are you getting on with Centroid PLC Ladder? And will you be brushing up on Python for the new CS-Labs software?
We could argue about this all day, but the reality is, with any controller on any non-basic machine, you need to learn or at least understand the basics of some form of programming.
Obviously, that depends on the machine in question. Configuration yes certainly every machine needs to be configured for it to work. But basic's like CSS and Ridgid tapping shouldn't require programming skills. Even providing examples isn't acceptable IMO it should be implemented as standard, esp for Lathe.Quote:
Originally Posted by m_c
For Lathe, it doesn't really have any shortfalls, which is what Chaz asked about. So I have no problem recommending this controller/software.Quote:
Originally Posted by m_c
The only other thing possibly is only having 16 x I/O but for Lathe, this is enough. For more industrial Lathe setup yes wouldn't be enough but it's not sold as an industrial controller. They have more expensive (stupidly expensive) ones for those machines.
Same goes for Mill really, Software is rock stable and works out the box for any DIY Mill. For more advanced Mill with advanced ATC etc then yes limited I/O isn't ideal but like said before there's ways around this.
The only area it lacks in is having layout and setup which doesn't suit Routers, which is not where centroid have lots of experience. However, this being worked on as we speak, by them and me. Which takes me to your next point.
PLC Ladder isn't the most intuitive language I agree but it's not rocket science either. Like I said above the Router setup isn't great and at the moment the way it handles tool changes doesn't suit routers at all. However, after only a few nights familiarising my self with Centroids PLC/Macros and ways of working I now have Macro which sets it up to work exactly has would like. And trust me I'm no programmer so can't be that hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by m_c
Edit: Also just to big up Centroid guys. After only asking one time on the forum within 3 days they provided two working macros to suit routers tool changing. They didn't suit what i wanted but do many others and I'm sure if I've asked they would have provided one for what I wanted but by then I'd already made my own.
Regards Python then I've used this before so holds no worries for me.
I agree for more advanced setups but for basic Lathe or Mill or Router then No you shouldn't need to know any programming IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by m_c
I think of the KFLOP as being a lot like Mach4. Enormous potential, but far too complex for the average user, and even what a lot of advanced users want to deal with.
100% Agree and that's why I won't use them and think I can class my self in the advanced category.:whistle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ger21
You don't really need programming skills though. You just need to copy and paste.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAZZCNC
16 IO would depend on the type of tool changer used. I know on my turret, it needs 6 inputs alone, along with 3 outputs. Combine with 2 homing switches and that's all the inputs gone. Now where do I connect the E-stop? Or as you've previously advocated, where do the limit switches go if you're not wiring them as part of the E-stop circuit?Quote:
For Lathe, it doesn't really have any shortfalls, which is what Chaz asked about. So I have no problem recommending this controller/software.
The only other thing possibly is only having 16 x I/O but for Lathe, this is enough. For more industrial Lathe setup yes wouldn't be enough but it's not sold as an industrial controller. They have more expensive (stupidly expensive) ones for those machines.
Same goes for Mill really, Software is rock stable and works out the box for any DIY Mill. For more advanced Mill with advanced ATC etc then yes limited I/O isn't ideal but like said before there's ways around this.
And I'd love to know your way around the lack of IO?
So what you're essentially saying is, you're happy to learn a language when it suits you, yet criticise others for using a different language when it doesn't suit you?Quote:
PLC Ladder isn't the most intuitive language I agree but it's not rocket science either. Like I said above the Router setup isn't great and at the moment the way it handles tool changes doesn't suit routers at all. However, after only a few nights familiarising my self with Centroids PLC/Macros and ways of working I now have Macro which sets it up to work exactly has would like. And trust me I'm no programmer so can't be that hard.
Regards Python then I've used this before so holds no worries for me.
;)
FWIW I do think the Centroid software looks good, but I think the Acorn is just too restrictive for anything other than a basic machine and I think they could really do with something that sits in between their current offerings. But I'd just hope they don't put relays on it. That really is one of my pet annoyances. If I want a relay, DIN mounted relays come in various sizes, so I can pick the one most suitable for the load, and not be stuck with a one size fits all that will likely die because of switching too much or too little current.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_c
How do industrial machines control ATC's and other peripheral equipment.? PLC's
What I'm saying is I shouldn't need to have to learn any language or even use copy paste for basic features like CSS on lathe setup.
But you are correct we could argue until the cows come home but let me just point out this last thing.
Why is it many folks, including me, are now looking to jump ship from Mach3/4.? . . . Lack of Hardware or I/O isn't the problem in most cases and many, probably 80% + don't have large I/O needs.
It's the lack of software stability or support that's the problem and centroid offer Rock solid industrial strength software with a high-quality controller they support and backup 100%.
Yes, I agree more I/O would be welcome but only by probably 20% of folks at best. Which really probably 10% should be looking at more high-end controllers anyway but are too tight-arsed to spend the money.!
Remember it's called a DIY controller aimed at lower spec DIY machines.
The software is Key IMO and Rock solid stability and backup come at a price and in this case I don't think the price is that high if the I/O fits your needs.
Edit: For those with Routers then at the Minute I think the favorite or winning hardware/Software package is probably UCCNC. Unless Cslabs new software stacks up or develops fast enough. In which case then the Cslabs will win hands down because of it's hardware.
I think a UC300ETH on a UB1 breakout board compares pretty well to an IP-S, at about half the price when you include software. So I'm not sure CS Labs would be a hands down winner. At the end of the day, though, your right, it'll be all about the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAZZCNC
Well, can't argue really because I've not got UB1 Breakout board (yet) but it will have to be good to match or beat Cslabs. Again for me, it's not just about the cost. The fact Cslabs is Din rail mounted with quality wire Connectors inside nice neat box comes into the equation. But do recognise the cost difference comes into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ger21
Regards Acorn I've just found out Centroid are working on I/O card so lack of I/O shouldn't be a problem soon.:beer:
These guys don't mess around. They listen and act which in my book goes along way.