Threaded View
-
07-06-2015 #28
It probably would be, however Ethernet is far better at handling and recovering from noise problems, as it can handle and resend lost data packets, whereas USB doesn't have that capability. I do suspect USB comms could be improved to handle these situation better, but it'll add cost, complexity, and processing overheads.
I know from various USS discussions, Greg struggled to fit all functionality into the USS, so I suspect it was having to do the bare minimum to handle communication. When it came to the ESS, Greg used a larger FPGA, and I do suspect there may be more going on within it to handle communication problems.
I also suspect other manufacturers have looked at the issues from the USS, and implemented strategies to better handle communication faults, as other good quality USB controllers don't seem to suffer from anywhere near as many communication faults.
You have to remember USS was the first successful USB external motion controller for Mach3, and it did achieve a lot, however I do think it's probably time to retire it, or at least update the hardware.Avoiding the rubbish customer service from AluminiumWarehouse since July '13.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Similar Threads
-
USB/Ethernet controller for Mach3/4 advice
By paulus.v in forum Control Hardware & SystemsReplies: 17Last Post: 17-02-2015, 09:37 PM -
CSMIO/IP-M vs Ethernet SmoothStepper (Begone foul parallel port!)
By Greeny in forum Control Hardware & SystemsReplies: 20Last Post: 14-11-2013, 11:59 PM -
USB and Ethernet Mach3 motion controller PLCM-E3
By Purelogic R&D in forum Manufacturer NewsReplies: 39Last Post: 29-12-2012, 09:38 AM -
Pros and cons of climb milling in wood
By Richie in forum Wood Finishing Tips & TricksReplies: 15Last Post: 14-06-2012, 05:09 PM -
Types of Ballnut and preload, questions - pros & cons ?
By Jon S in forum Lead Screws, Nuts & SupportsReplies: 1Last Post: 16-01-2012, 03:39 PM
Bookmarks