Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2012, 06:09:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
* Home Help Search Calendar Links Login Register
+  Machsupport Forum
|-+  Third party software and hardware support forums.
| |-+  SmoothStepper USB (Moderator: Warp9TD)
| | |-+  Does it reduce CPU load ?
Pages: « 1 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Does it reduce CPU load ?  (Read 2265 times)
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Chris.Botha
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 468


wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2009, 03:01:17 PM »

thanks dude, but i suspect we both already know the answer.  how much was the smooth stepper and was it a  pita to install?
Logged

Jeff_Birt
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 809




View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2009, 03:15:31 PM »

It is very easy to install. You plug it in, point the Found New Hardware Wizard to SS driver file, install the SS Plug-in for Mach 3 and then tell Mach to use the SS as your motion control device. After that you will need to configure the SS for the proper update freq for each axis and the velocity update rate. Ports&Pins settings etc are all done in Mach 3.

I have a more detailed set of instructions that I send out with each SS I sell...
Logged

Happy machining , Jeff Birt
 
Chris.Botha
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 468


wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2009, 10:15:09 PM »

Sounds good, im waiting on Ken to fill me in a little more on it, i believe there are still a few software issues to be resolved? Im quite keen to get one if it significantly reduces system overhead as i want to hook up two webcams, one over X and one over A so I can tip2tip at the same time while i am jogging with mach. Currently I can have a single webcam on with a large path but if i roll A everything goes to hell in a handbasket and i hit the ceiling with my processor.

i suppose i could go for a quad or dual core system and somehow try force the camera routines onto a different core than mach but seems like it should be simpler if something helps take the load off mach. in much the same way a graphics card takes the load off graphics routines on the processor.

what does it cost by the way?


Logged

Jeff_Birt
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 809




View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2009, 07:35:31 AM »

The SS itself is $155, you'll need the correct cables to fit your application too. If your replacing a parallel port you'll likely want the LPH26 to DB25 cable. Take a look here: http://soigeneris.com/Warp9.aspx
Logged

Happy machining , Jeff Birt
 
jwlrymkr
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 37


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2009, 12:45:24 PM »

Sounds good, im waiting on Ken to fill me in a little more on it, i believe there are still a few software issues to be resolved? Im quite keen to get one if it significantly reduces system overhead as i want to hook up two webcams, one over X and one over A so I can tip2tip at the same time while i am jogging with mach. Currently I can have a single webcam on with a large path but if i roll A everything goes to hell in a handbasket and i hit the ceiling with my processor.


Only one real major PITA issue I am having with it is any G00 move will only go at 90mm/min, so I have to edit out those moves in my code and replace with G01. I talked to Leo a couple of weeks ago and he is not having this issue, so I suspect it is just related to my board somehow. Also cant use the home and probe button. Have to home each axis separately, then probe.
It probably wont gain you much in speed. I think my biggest speed increase was converting to the ball screws with a lower pitch.
Logged

Regards,
Ken
Chris.Botha
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 468


wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2009, 03:36:12 PM »

Ken.. i suppose it might be asking a bit much but the ultimate test would be to hook your mill up to the parallel port, load a big path and cut air.. monitor processor usage then do the same while running it through the SS.

Not that i would ask you to do such a thing of course....  Wink

Did you require a cable conversion as mentioned above?

At 155 dollars i suppose im not loosing much giving it a shot... but im not keen to start editting my code because of the issues you getting Sad

thanks for feedback.

Regards
Chris
Logged

Jeff_Birt
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 809




View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2009, 09:23:46 AM »

Quote
Only one real major PITA issue I am having with it is any G00 move will only go at 90mm/min,


I have yet to hear of anyone else having this problem. I certainly have not seen it in any of the SmoothSteppers I have used/sold over the past year or so. The same code runs with no modifications with the LPT or SS. I have my shop machine set up run either LPT or SS. It is an old 1.5 gHz AMD machine so I should be able to see some difference in processor load.
Logged

Happy machining , Jeff Birt
 
jwlrymkr
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 37


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2009, 09:07:40 PM »

I can't explain it either Jeff...Oddly, when I run through the PP, the machine will G00 at the speeds the motors are tuned to in Mach. The jogging hotkeys (arrow keys) work fine with the SS and jog at the tuned speeds...It's only when running the code in my toolpaths that this slow G0 happens.

Chris, I'll try to take some time next week to clock processor loads both ways. I ran a 7mb rotary file yesterday with no problems with the toolpath window open.
Logged

Regards,
Ken
Chris.Botha
Active Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 468


wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2009, 09:12:21 PM »

cool
thanks dude
Logged

Pages: « 1 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!