CSMIO/IP-M vs Ethernet SmoothStepper (Begone foul parallel port!)

Hi,


I'm looking at buying an Ethernet Step Pulse generator/motion controller, either a:

CSMIO/IP-M

Or an

Ethernet SmoothStepper

I would be very interested in hearing anyones opinions or experiences with either.

Both look good to me, and seem to intergrate nicely with Mach.
I'm leaning towards the CSMIO board as it has both Inputs and outputs and doesn't need a breakout board(i think?)
Although it's pulse frequency is 125Khz max

The Smoothstepper requires a breakout board (i think?) but has a pulse frequency of 4Mhz.

I have Gecko 203v drivers (which are 10 microstep) & 200 step motors
so they require 2000 pulses per revolution of the motor shaft.
therefore the CSMIO is capable of spinning the motor at 125000/2000= 62.5 revs/ Sec = 3750rpm
This is way more than i need so i think the 125khz pulse rate is not a problem.

Am i correct in assuming this or have i botched my calcs somewhere.

Cheers
Greeny

I used to run via printer port, and had no end of problems, missed steps, stalling motors etc, I then got an ESS and have never looked back.

I am sure others with advice you shorty.

Thou I've not used the CSMIO/P-M but will shortly have it's bigger brother CSMIO/IP-S I can tell you the ESS is more than good enough for steppers and will easily do what you want.

The CSMIO is a cracking bit of kit and very high quality but the -M version doesn't allow slaved motors I believe.? So if your wanting this then the ESS will be better.

If you go with ESS then buy the PMDX 126 BOB Because the ESS can be directly plugged into it and with another daughter board the Gecko's can be combined making a very neat setup. Not cheap but high quality and the BOB is about the best in the business at this price range.

Just a note regards the frequency and ESS 4mhz max, The G203V have a maximum of input of 250khz so this is a limiting factor and in reality then you won't actually run any where near this. You'll mostly find your running a maximum of 100khz sot he 125Khz isn't limiting with steppers.

Servo's with high resolution encoders then it's different and you'll need the extra frequency. This is one of the reasons amongst others why I'm getting the CSMIO-IP-S.

Thanks guys, looks like both are good. I actually have a pmdx-122 stashed so it's pretty much even Stevens as to which to choose.

The CSMIO has all 24v digital input/outputs which I think is less affected by noise than 5v. Also it has 2 analogue 0-10v outputs for vfd control so i'm still leaning towards that, but the ESS looks good too! Decisions decisions. :eagerness:

Cheers
greeny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greeny

The CSMIO has all 24v digital input/outputs which I think is less affected by noise than 5v. Also it has 2 analogue 0-10v outputs for vfd control so i'm still leaning towards that, but the ESS looks good too! Decisions decisions. :eagerness:

---

Yes the CSMIO would be my choice if didn't need slaved motors because it's neat and high quality unit. . . BUT will say while 24V I/O's are nice you can still have a 24V driven control E-stop and limit system that is very noise immune if using the ESS or PP.!

The PMDX spindle board will plug into the 122 if spindle speed control was needed and you have it already so ESS will probably workout cheaper and still perform the same or better.!!!. . . . Ermm close call but either way you can't go wrong and both will blow the PP away.!!

Thanks,

Yes a 24v safety circuit is a good idea on either. I just bought a Pilz Pnoz 1 safety relay yesterday off fleabay which I hope will do the job nicely.
Like you say it really is a close call, and most definately the best thing is the PP gets the boot. :beer:

Cheers
Greeny

I just noticed Jazz's point about slaved motors.
My upcoming build does not use slaved motors, but that's not to say i won't in future.

The CSMIO has an in built facility to slave motors independently of Mach. This however is NOT available in the M version.
You can however still slave motors via Mach with the CMSIO "thinking" two slaved motors are independent axes, but CSMIO-M is limited to 4 Axes so that's something anyone reading this and considering buying the CSMIO-M should be aware of.

WARNING:
Slaving within Mach could be a very bad idea when using the CSMIO-M
Please check posts below for updates, or better still check with CS-labs before making any buying decisions

Cheers
Greeny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greeny

I just noticed Jazz's point about slaved motors.
My upcoming build does not use slaved motors, but that's not to say i won't in future.

The CSMIO has an in built facility to slave motors independently of Mach. This however is NOT available in the M version.
You can however still slave motors via Mach with the CMSIO "thinking" two slaved motors are independent axes, but CSMIO-M is limited to 4 Axes so that's something anyone reading this and considering buying the CSMIO-M should be aware of.

Cheers
Greeny

---

This needs checking carefully thou because every other motion control card I have used takes the duty's of homing away from Mach3, it's a technical issue I think and comes has part of the deal of external motion control.?
So while CMSIO may allow slaved independent axis that doesn't mean it will treat them combined while homing then independent for squaring which is what you need for slaved axis when homing.??. . . . .Best check with Manufacturer first.!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAZZCNC

This needs checking carefully thou because every other motion control card I have used takes the duty's of homing away from Mach3, it's a technical issue I think and comes has part of the deal of external motion control.?
So while CMSIO may allow slaved independent axis that doesn't mean it will treat them combined while homing then independent for squaring which is what you need for slaved axis when homing.??. . . . .Best check with Manufacturer first.!!

---

Ahh, I did not realise that.
So potentially, slaving a motor in Mach when using a CSMIO could be a very unwise thing to do.

Apologies for bad info. Note to self. Check facts before offering dodgy info!!!
I have edited my post to warn and will check with CS-Lab about this

Cheers
Greeny

Give another point to ESS,

They really do help if their are issues and once fully set up it runs a dream. When tuning my motors I can get a solid .005 to .01 mm repeats (the DTI and Plunge gauge are calibrated to +/- .01) which literally puts the machine up against the ability for me to accurately measure. That is with C7 screws Zap NEMA23 "24" 3.1 NM motors. Running Mach 3. B.O.B is a PMDX-126 and the power supply is a home built toroidal transformer providing ~68V w/ 15A. It does the job. Have the spindle on the relay on board the PMDX and also a secondary relay off the PMDX so that power is cut during E-Stop.

With Geckos and the Jumbo mode on a PMDX 126 or the ribbon cables you can set up a rather power system if you have the time effort and funds.

-Michael

Any recommended retailers for the ESS or are you guys buying direct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Washout

Any recommended retailers for the ESS or are you guys buying direct?

---

Peter Homann is a Good guy to deal with and knows the SS very well and helpful if you have any issue. (He's in Oz.!! thou not a problem.)
SmoothStepper Controllers : Homann Designs!, The preferred CNC Component Supplier

I've also bought direct from Warp9 and while they deliver ok getting any help from them quickly can be hard at times, peter is much quicker to respond and knows is stuff.! Last time I bought there was Hardly any price difference due to currency at time.!!

I've recently ordered a PDMX-126 and a Smoothstepper ESS to use with my machine which will be running twin screws with slaved steppers on the long axis (1200mm long). I've just been reading that there is an issue with the SS regarding homing slaved motors using two switches (one per motor) : Ethernet Smooth Stepper, What Are The Negatives, What Features Are Missing?

Does anyone have experience of this? Is there a workaround apart from only using one switch?

Cheers,
Si.

I'll see if it's possible to simulate this tomorrow, I've currently got my system all connected and working with the stepper motors just lying on the bench. I thought the reported issue was a function of Mach3 rather than the ESS but maybe not.

There is a thread about it on the Warp9td forum (you need to be registered on the site to view the forum), and a quick scan says it does work, and Greg has actually modified it fairly recently to work a bit different. There are comments that some versions of Mach don't work quite how they should though.

Thanks guys, I'll investigate further.

Si.

Right this is how I have it set up.
ESS, Mach3, 4 inputs for home limits X Y Z A, I have A slaved off X because I'm using 2 ballscrews with one stepper motor each. I used the settings in Mach3 to slave A from X.
I pressed the 'Ref All Home' button on Mach3 screen and the Z axis moved first, hit the home limit, reversed slightly then stopped and moved onto the Y limit with same result. It then moved both X and A motors until one of them hit it's own home limit, reversed slightly then ran the other motor until it also hit it's home limit and stopped.
I tried it both ways round i.e. letting it hit A limit before X and X before A and it worked perfectly both times.

The reason I used 4 inputs for the home limits is because having worked with PLC's for many years that is the method of choice, anyway I rewired X Y Z in series so they used the same input while A used another input. It worked fine just as previous and it didn't mind if the A limit operated before the X or vice versa.

My conclusion is, there is no problem with the Smooth Stepper and Mach3 with regards to slaved motors using two home limits (one per motor) provided at least one of the slaved axis home limits has it's own input.

Eddy, Thanks for going to the trouble of testing that and posting your findings, much appreciated. Having read your post and also the most recent posts on Warp9's forum i'm confident the old issues have now been fixed.

As a matter of interest, could you post which version of Mach and the ESS plugin you are using. I believe 'ES_v10o1d1h' is the most recent ESS plugin.

Si.

ESS_v10h2d1a
Mach3Version3.043.066

Eddy, If you haven't already seen it, i'd recommend having a look at the 'Auto Squaring' ESS thread on Warp9 (registration req'd as m_c mentioned above): Forum

The new beta plugin for the ESS on that thread apparently fixes the slaving issues mentioned in the 'zone thread in my earlier post.

Si

These are the dates of the files I have, I've got the latest one and I'll try it tomorrow, it would be better if they used a more logical naming method such as 10.1.1, 10.2.1, etc.

ESS_v10h2d1a.m3p - dated 28/12/2012
ESS_v10o1d1h.m3p - dated 19/10/2013