Will run out of HAIR SOON

[JAZZCNC]

Been mulling it over, think I need to heed the advice of those in the know.
PP BOB - RIP.
Going to go for the uc300, and actually get on with making some stuff.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Wise choice, but if you don't need all the I/O the UC300 offers then you may find the Axbb-e is the better option as it's much neater and comes with BOB built into it, the UC300 still needs a breakout board to be safe. Both the Axbb-e and the UC300 are identical regards the motion controller side so the UC300 offers nothing extra other than more ports (I/O)

[dazp1976]

Wise choice, but if you don't need all the I/O the UC300 offers then you may find the Axbb-e is the better option as it's much neater and comes with BOB built into it, the UC300 still needs a breakout board to be safe. Both the Axbb-e and the UC300 are identical regards the motion controller side so the UC300 offers nothing extra other than more ports (I/O)

The only real difference between the 2 is the secondary analog output and the way you install a 5th/6th axis. And of course the 300 needs bob's or equivelent.

1. Some servo's use 2 analog inputs for hybrid speed/torque mode. If required, use uc300.

2. Some have problems adding a 5th/6th axis to the Isolated outputs on bbe. Opto's seem to be non high speed (basically for switching). If you need to use a high khz kernel for pulses then use the non-isolated outs on port3 with a high speed bob (ucsb type + IDC26 cable).

Other than that the controller is exactly the same.

Haven't fired up my 300 yet, but the unit looks like a 'proper job'. Big step up from my £5 thing

[JAZZCNC]

The only real difference between the 2 is the secondary analog output and the way you install a 5th/6th axis. And of course the 300 needs bob's or equivelent.

1. Some servo's use 2 analog inputs for hybrid speed/torque mode. If required, use uc300.

Not exactly correct, I think you maybe don't understand how the Speed/Torque mode switching in servos works.?

You don't need 2 analog 0-10v OUTPUTS from the controller to use this feature on a servo. You just need Digital OUTPUTS which connect to Digital INPUTS on the servo drive to signal the mode change, you still use the same Analog speed reference output from the controller to command the speed or torque.
The Servo Drive just changes tuning parameters etc when it sees the Digital inputs change. The same is true when switching from High to Low-speed range on a servo spindle drive or going from Speed to Position mode for ridged tapping. All done using the same Speed reference input, whether that be digital or Analog, just controlled and switched using digital Inputs.

However, to the OP this isn't really relevant as he's using a stepper-based system and if he was it wouldn't be an issue provided he didn't need more I/O than the AXBB-E offers.
In fact, for the OP the AXBB-E is a better option than the UC300 + UCSB or UCBB combo because it comes with dedicated Analog Output built into the BOB which is protected, the UCSB and UCBB don't offer this so you need some external protection if you want to be safe. It's also upgradable with an additional BOB if more I/O is required.

I fit both the AXBB-E and UC300 to machines and to me for most stepper-based machines that don't run an ATC spindle or require lots of I/O then the AXBB-E wins hands down for its neatness and simplicity in one single board and it's not exactly short of I/O for most machines. The ratio I fit is at least 20:1 in favor of the AXBB-E.

[A_Camera]

I wish the AXBB-E was available when I built my machine. It is really a very nice product, well worth it's price. I think it's the best choice, even if the UCCNC license is not included.

[Kitwn]

I can vouch for that, I must have told him 1000 times to dump the PP but he wouldn't listen, so for being so Pigheaded and tight as a ducks arse I made him an honorable Yorkshire man...

I'll have you know my father was a pure-bred Yorkshireman of many generations pedigree (including a long-past Lord Mayor of York according to his mother) even if he was born in Karachi. But I accept the sobriquet with pride.

[703E5]

OK so AXBB-E controller would probably suit me better than the UC300 + extras.
Unless,
As I will be running 3 axis, with vfd for spindle, with plans to eventually set up pump for coolant .
Would this set up would require more I/O's than the AXBB-E has?

Really sorry for potentially stupid questions that some of you have probably seen 100000000's of times, but I'm struggling to establish what I need with what.

I suppose there's never a stupid question only stupid answers.

Right last one (for now), Mach 3 + AXBB-E. Have I wasted money on Mach 3 licence ? Should I have got UCCNC?
Oh for a simple life.


Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

[Doddy]

Right last one (for now), Mach 3 + AXBB-E. Have I wasted money on Mach 3 licence ? Should I have got UCCNC?
Oh for a simple life.


Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Try it - you have nothing to lose but your hair. A transition later down to the line to UCCNC is not difficult (and oh-so much more comfortable).

[JAZZCNC]

OK so AXBB-E controller would probably suit me better than the UC300 + extras.
Unless,
As I will be running 3 axis, with vfd for spindle, with plans to eventually set up pump for coolant .
Would this set up would require more I/O's than the AXBB-E has?

Yes the AXBB-E has more than enough I/O's for a 3 axis router. You have 6 inputs and 7 Outputs (8 if you include charge pump but won't go there)
With the inputs, you will use 1 for E-stop, and depending on how you wire homes and limits between 1 and 6.
You have several ways to wire switches but the most common is to wire all the limits in series using Normally closed switches using just one input for all axis. If anyone switches trigger the circuit is broken and mach3 sees this as a limit trip.

Similar with homes switches but instead of Normally open you use a Normally closed type switch wired in parallel back to 1 input. Then if anyone switches trips mach3 sees this as Home for that axis.
It does this because by default mach3 or Uccnc home each axis separately so it only needs to see 1 input trigger, in which case you set each axis Home to watch the same input pin. Then whichever axis mach3 was moving at the time uses that position as Home location when the input trips.

If you wanted to have all 3 axis to go home at the same time then you would need to use 3 inputs, one for each axis. This is a waste really so not done very often unless you have lots of spare I/O.

Now if you want to save even more I/O this can be cut down to just 1 input for both Home and limits. This is done by using Normally Open switches on both limits and homes and wiring them all in parallel. Mach3 knows the difference between home and limits so when it's cutting it treats the input as a limit and when it's homing it temporally disables the limits and treats the input as Home position.
The only downside to this is that if one of your switches develops a fault or a wire breaks then because it's a Normally open switch you and mach3 won't know until it doesn't work. Where if a wire broke with a normally closed switch mach3 would see this as a limit trip and go into reset.

Horse for course really but using 2 inputs, 1 for limits with NC switches in series and 1 for homes with NO in parallel is preferred.
This would still leave you with 3 inputs for other things like probes etc.

With 7 Outputs you have plenty, will need one for controlling a relay which starts/stops the VFD, I would use the same relay to control the water pump if using Water cooled spindle this way it's only on while the spindle is spinning.
The other 6 can be used for things like coolant, vacuum, extraction or just turning the kettle on if you like. Often you'll use these to control relays or contacts because the outputs only provide low current so can't power high current devices things directly.
If you do this then also make sure you use relays with flyback diodes so they don't back-feed current into the Output and blow it up.

Really sorry for potentially stupid questions that some of you have probably seen 100000000's of times, but I'm struggling to establish what I need with what.

No stupid questions but the ones you don't ask.

Right last one (for now), Mach 3 + AXBB-E. Have I wasted money on Mach 3 licence ? Should I have got UCCNC?
Oh for a simple life.

Does it matter.? it's done either live with it or move on.!

Mach3 is still a very capable piece of software that has been around a very long time and got a lot of happy users. I used it for the last 2o+yrs and fit on 1000's of machines so would never say it's a waste of money. But it's a fact it's long in the tooth and unsupported and has been now for a long time.
UCCNC on the other hand is very well supported and far more advanced than mach3 so it is IMO the ONLY option someone buying an AXBB-E or any of the other CNCDRIVE controllers should use.!!! . . . . PROVIDED . . . they haven't spent money on a Mach3 license. In which case use Mach3 and live with any issues it may or may not bring up.

THAT SAID.!! . . . If you buy a controller from me then I will provide the UCCNC license at a reduced price to forum members which is a fraction of the mach3 license and still cheaper than if direct from CNCDRIVE. This makes it a no-brainer to me to use UCCNC rather than mach3.

[dazp1976]

OK so AXBB-E controller would probably suit me better than the UC300 + extras.
Unless,
As I will be running 3 axis, with vfd for spindle, with plans to eventually set up pump for coolant .
Would this set up would require more I/O's than the AXBB-E has?

Really sorry for potentially stupid questions that some of you have probably seen 100000000's of times, but I'm struggling to establish what I need with what.

I suppose there's never a stupid question only stupid answers.

Right last one (for now), Mach 3 + AXBB-E. Have I wasted money on Mach 3 licence ? Should I have got UCCNC?
Oh for a simple life.


Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

AXBB-E has plenty of outputs out of the box.
Enough for 4 axis + 9 other ancilliary switches etc + the analog 0-10v.
Port#3 gives another 11 on top of that I believe.

For me it was only lacking in the amount of inputs having only 6 + an exra 5 on port#3 (11).

The UC300eth + extras gives the same amount of outputs but can give you up to 49 inputs.
I needed more inputs which was the only reason I went to the 300.