Machsupport Forum
Third party software and hardware support forums. => SmoothStepper USB => Topic started by: elpablito on April 14, 2010, 01:01:30 PM
-
Hi,
Im currently using SS in my router, and would like to know some more about its developement status.
I have noticed that its still in BETA and that new updates are not being released very often.
It would be nice if someone in its developement team could inform if theyre still working on the plugin and firmware and what are the next fixes and features to be expected.
Regards
Pablo
-
Pablo,
You may want to ask on the Warp9 site of the SS.
LOL,
RICH
-
And what is this section for? Isnt it for smoothstepper related questions?
-
It is, Pablo, but I think what Rich suggests is that Greg (the developer of the SS) doesn't really visit this section, so there is no one else here who can give you a better answer than he can. Hope it's not the case on the Warp9 site.
Daniel
-
Status is pretty unclear, Pablo. They still are manufacturing it, and boards are for sale. But, I just looked, and Greg hasn't posted to his forum in 3 months. There are no new software updates.
Best,
BW
-
We called them a couple months ago and they said it was still being developed.
I started this thread to try get some updates on its status (sorry Rich I misunderstood your response)
I hope they continue on business, but if their status is unclear maybe someone from Mach developement team could inform us what hardware they expect to be compatible with Mach4
I had two routers running with chinesse controllers. Then decided to adapt them to mach. We used the G100s that seemed to be the best option, but they never really worked and died in BETA stage.
Then we moved to the SS that was the best option at that time, and also made our own bb board arround it. Now, about a year later, its status is unclear?...
Mach is without doubt an outstanding software, but it seems that there are no serious hardware developements arround it
-
I will speak out of ignorance.
Suggested the Warp9 Site for reasons clarified by Daniel above , sorry i wasn't clear on my reply.
I check the site out occasionaly to just have a flavor of what is happening and after waiting forever for backlash comp to get implemented, I just put the SS aside and bought a new PC. My guess is that you won't see too much until Mach 4 comes about since that needs to settle out as support items are affected by what is happening. In the end all should be better, only Greg can speak for the product.
RICH
-
Take a look at Dynamotion's KFLOP. They seem to be actively supporting it, but there aren't a lot of Mach3 users.
-
Take a look at Dynamotion's KFLOP. They seem to be actively supporting it, but there aren't a lot of Mach3 users.
I read up on this product and was about to purchase the Kflop board . . until I saw $20 shipping for a board that 'fits in the palm of your hand' from California to Texas. In my experience, a company that blatantly overcharges for shipping also mistreats their customers in other ways as well. I'll keep looking . . . .
-
Simpson, I could live with the shipping charge. It's not crazy out of line when you consider they're probably trying to recoup whatever it costs them to pack a box, label it, and so forth. There's usually more than just a UPS charge there is what I'm getting at.
After having been through a GRex and a Smoothstepper, I think the best answer on these boards is for Mach3 to publish a standard API for step generators. The problem always seems to be with software. If it could be written once, and reused across all the hardware, and if it didn't require custom plug-ins, then I think there would be more hope.
I have to believe the Mach developers are tired of writing new interfaces anyway. By now, there have been enough I would think they understand what's needed and could publish such an API. Then it would be up to the board members to follow the API. Maybe we could finally get one finished and well supported then.
Cheers,
BW
-
Simpson, I could live with the shipping charge. It's not crazy out of line when you consider they're probably trying to recoup whatever it costs them to pack a box, label it, and so forth. There's usually more than just a UPS charge there is what I'm getting at.
After having been through a GRex and a Smoothstepper, I think the best answer on these boards is for Mach3 to publish a standard API for step generators. The problem always seems to be with software. If it could be written once, and reused across all the hardware, and if it didn't require custom plug-ins, then I think there would be more hope.
I have to believe the Mach developers are tired of writing new interfaces anyway. By now, there have been enough I would think they understand what's needed and could publish such an API. Then it would be up to the board members to follow the API. Maybe we could finally get one finished and well supported then.
It's not the $20, it is the ethics it represents to me. If they really need to make that extra $10, it should be added 'in broad daylight' to the price of the product and not 'slipped in', especially since they don't reveal the method of shipping, and give no options, only the price . . . . I don;t like sneaky . . . the entire pre-sale process, including greasing the bottom line by overcharging for shipping says something to me about a company. Just a pet peeve of mine, perhaps, but I get that 'bad taste' in my mouth when I see stuff like that. I routinely ship world wide and I know what the costs are.
I agree about the API. I can't get comfy with smoothstepper for obvious reasons, but I read that there are 'several' motion controllers out there that work with Mach. Now that I have the swapaxis problem solved, I have started to snoop around a bit for a fast pulse generator so that I can get rid of the step multipliers, which cause a variety of ills. It would be my preference to get something that will outlive Mach3. Kflop is only one example, and at that it carries a price which may be fair considering it's capabilities . . if it actually works . . but I would not be using most of those capabilities, so it is not a particularly good value. Still, I was about to buy it to get on with my projects . . . except for that taste.
-
I read up on this product and was about to purchase the Kflop board . . until I saw $20 shipping for a board that 'fits in the palm of your hand' from California to Texas. In my experience, a company that blatantly overcharges for shipping also mistreats their customers in other ways as well. I'll keep looking . . . .
Can't agree more on that, Steve!
Dan
-
Yep, I understand about the shipping. Just be aware there may be no malice aforethought. Having worked with a number of small businesses, they will more often think in terms of wanting to cover costs than outsmarting their customers with clever marketing.
Cheers,
BW
-
Yep, I understand about the shipping. Just be aware there may be no malice aforethought. Having worked with a number of small businesses, they will more often think in terms of wanting to cover costs than outsmarting their customers with clever marketing.
Perhaps, but I also e-mailed them about the shipping cost and got no response. There is a saying; "Don't expect to be treated better after the wedding than you were during the courtship". Whatever hardware and software that I end up using might well be provided as part of the 4th axis package, so the vendor's attitude towards customers is particularly important. The shipping is just indicative, there are other red flags there. Having worked with small business, I'm sure you have seen the result of getting in bed with the wrong vendor.
Did you make that gizmo in your avatar? Amazing piece . . . sort of like metal scripshaw.
-
I did make the Turner's Cube, though I did it without turning, LOL.
The holes are interpolated: http://www.cnccookbook.com/CCTurnersCube.html
Cheers,
BW
-
Wow, amazing site, you have there, Bob. I shall make a pont to peruse when I have more time.
Note to Smoothstepper owners: The SwapAxis board has been tested and works with the Smoothstepper.
-
Note to Smoothstepper owners: The SwapAxis board has been tested and works with the Smoothstepper.
What is the SwapAxis board?
-
Hi Gerry,
It is a simple board that Steve has designed to accomplish in hardware the same effect of using the SwapAxis() command in Mach3. Two pairs of Step/Dir signals are in and two pairs are out. A triggering signal from Mach3 swaps the output signals between the two pairs.
Daniel
-
Bob,
You mentioned that you have 'been thru' a G100 and a smoothstepper. I took that to mean you were not using either, but on second thought . . . .
Are you currently using the smoothstepper in a working machine? If so, would you say that known issues can be avoided and the product used with success, or is it still something of a crap shoot?
-
I am still using a Smoothstepper.
I think it is a reasonable device as offered today. If a parallel breakout board won't work for you for some reason, it may be the best possible choice.
If it were well supported and being actively updated, I would view it as an excellent device. My next CNC project I will likely revert to a parallel board unless I see some major progress here.
There are some known issues that I find annoying--the lack of backlash compensation is one. If stuff like that is promised for years and not delivered, it starts to seem like it may not ever be delivered.
There is also the fear of unknown issues. For example, it has odd behavior surrounding loss of position depending on how you stop an executing program. Personally, I am not sure it can be trusted without re-homing the machine if you do have to stop. This makes me wonder whether there are other edge cases where it may be a little bit wrong. Others may be completely confident in the board's behavior, I have just seen some odd things here and there.
Ray Livingston has one too, and has mentioned a number of problems he has had, including problems around probing. He indicated he thought most of these problems were being fixed near term though.
Without prompt and current support, it is very hard to know what's really happening with these cases. Are they Smoothstepper problems? Mach3 problems? Operator errors?
This is the difficulty of a relatively unsupported device where finger pointing is possible, and one side that can be pointed to basically does not speak up very often. I don't think the board is far from being done, so I'm puzzled why it doesn't just get done.
Lastly, there is a fear of being orphaned. I blew up one Smoothstepper due to a power surge that killed a fair number of things in the house. OK, I bought another one. But if the one man operation is not interested in finishing the software, how long before they're not interested in manufacturing the hardware? And then what do I do?
I proposed one time on CNCZone that Greg should sell his design to Mariss F. at Gecko, and Mariss should hire him full time to make sure the software was kept up to date. That would totally rock and be a good thing for the Mach3 non-parallel community. I have to believe enough people would buy a well supported board from a name brand that it would be profitable.
Alternatively, I'm back to wishing Mach3 would standardize its API for these things and release an open souce plug-in so that there would be multiple suppliers.
Cheers,
BW
-
the lack of backlash compensation is one. If stuff like that is promised for years
Will be interesting to see if something is done in the "very near" future. I have given my 2 cents to Greg on the subject.
Not that i have any influence......... ;)
RICH
-
Bob: Thank you much for the thorough and well considered response. It is very helpful to me a this time. There seems to be opposing groups of haters and fanboys and it's sometimes difficult to get an objective opinion.
In the midst of my tantrum over the shipping cost, I have continued to research the Kflop. If my butt cools of enough, perhaps I will acquire one to evaluate. We shall see.
Producing the hardware does not seem to be the problem, so I question how helpful Gecko et. all would be as a solution. I will snoop around some more and see what may be out there. If I cannot find what I want, rest assured I will make it myself . . and you can quote me on that. There certainly would not be any competition in the marketplace. The question is, how big is the market. My research is showing that many (if not most) systems do not need such a . . . 'helper' . . like smoothstepper. So long as Mach continues to provide the PP driver, external hardware in optional, and therefor unattractive to develop. Catch-22. Add to that the very large percentage of hobby users and it becomes more understandable why there is not a line of developers knocking on the door. Just my rambling thoughts on the subject.
Rich: methinks the pile of pennies should be very high by now from the multitude of 2 cents worth that have been thrown in this particular wishing well. I have been hearing 'very near' future since I started on this forum, which has been a while now. The swapAxis board exists because it was faster and cheaper to fix the problem myself rather than wait forever . . it take far too long buy a feature paying 2 cents at a time . . . ;)
-
SIMPSON,
I know what you mean. BTW , i have been following your thread on the rotary and one of these days i will get back into it's use.
I will admit that the SS provided a way to deal with a problem PC that i was using, and i struggled with buying the SS as compared to just putting the money towards a new pc, which i did a year later anyway. The only thing that kills the use of the SS here is the backlash comp. The only reason for not getting rid of it is that it still can be used with my laptops if i so desire and believe that one day, whenever that may be, you will need an external device like the SS.
Hobby users need BC as it provides an avenue for doing acceptable machining. I have seen some realy crappy systems which use BC and do rather exceptional work. When i say very "near future" i am meaning that maybe Greg will finaly provide something, maybe limited, but accepatable to the hobbiest.
The funny thing about the SS developement is that it agrees with nature.......
"Progress and move forward or wither and die" ;)
RICH
-
An expensive SS alternative.
http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,14738.0/topicseen.html
-
Hobby users need BC as it provides an avenue for doing acceptable machining. I have seen some really crappy systems which use BC and do rather exceptional work.
As always, you make good points.
I tried Mach's BC and found it to be useful only for spotting type functions . . drilling holes, etc. The way it is implemented for continuous cutting, if I remember correctly (it's been quite some time) it actually stops with every direction change per axis. This is not useable in my opinion. I think there are solutions to this and I suggested a different approach, but the only result was to raise the ire of a couple of fanboys so it was not a topic that was interesting to discuss, but I'll be brave and just throw out another idea here.
If accuracy is the objective, then another way to spell BC is 'ground ball screw'. If you start with a smoothstepper budget of $180 (assuming $20 shipping . .LOL!) then you can find a pair of used ground ball screws on eBay and fit them to your machine and have money left over for a cold Bud lite. I think the worst used ballscrew will do a much better job than Mach's BC in it's current form.
My need is for a high pulse rate in order to get the RPM I need with the high count encoders that I also need, without resorting to step multipliers. That's a little more difficult to solve if you are going to stay with Mach3. I have quite a time investment in Mach3 at this point and there are a lot of them out there, so it's worth a bit more effort before turing off the porch light.
-
There are two threads on the Warp9 site were discussions about BC has been going on. Here is Greg's latest response and why i say in the near future.
Thanks for keeping the discussion productive and civil. I think have decided to make it work the best and I will continue on my plans to make it stop whenever there is a reversal. It will be fun to see it working. I will work on it this weekend, but I wouldn't count on me finishing it this weekend. I'll keep you posted however.
There is difficulty in implementing BC to satisfy say CV mode. I would suggest that folks post to the Warp 9 site if they have some constructive suggestions for Greg.
In a general, good components for the "machine system" are required to eliminate BC, using BC will help in achieving improved machining accuracy
but there will be trade offs in using it.
RICH
-
2 comments and then I'm moving on.
First, a device like a G540 but with a USB input I think would sell extremely well. Parallel ports are dying. We can keep haunting eBay for old PC's and buying parallel cards, but at some point that's just not the way. We need a USB alternative that works and is reliably supported.
Second, RE backlash comp, yes, it can help a marginal machine to produce much better results. But remember, even VMC's with ground ball screws and all the rest also use backlash comp. It matters for best results.
Cheers,
BW
-
Perhaps when Brian gets around to finishing the next version of Mach3, he should get into the hardware business. Or partner up with someone. Moving forward, with the next version, sell Mach as both a software and hardware package. While some people may balk at the added expense, they can always use the last parallel port version. Or EMC. But for the added price, it should be more stable, better integrated, and run on all PC's. Bug fixes should get done quicker.
-
But remember, even VMC's with ground ball screws and all the rest also use backlash comp. It matters for best results.
I suspect this has more to do with marketing than performance. Open loop backlash comp will always have serious drawbacks, no matter what type of machine your trying to use it on. Ask any machinist about watching the table jump on a manual mill as all of the backlash in one axis is suddenly taken up by the cutting forces as your feeding the opposite axis. The same things happens on our CNC machines, so without knowing exactly where the table is there is no way you can accurately compensate for backlash. One benefit of having relatively poor performance lead screws is that the increased friction helps to prevent the table from being pushed around.
Now, if you have glass scales or other form of auxiliary encoders on your table there are some high $$$ motion control cards that can make use of them for closed loop backlash compensation. But then you in a completely different price range, at 10x to 20x the cost of the SmoothStepper just for the motion control card.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see backlash comp for the SS. My main interest to is to see if there would be any improvement to the circuit boards I make.
-
Aside from lead screws' increased friction there is also the slides friction and here conventional slides have advantage over linear ball slides.
One thing we usually forget about backlash compensation, and thus underestimate its benefit in producing more accurate parts, by saying "the cutting forces will drag the table in unpredicted directions" is the fact that backlash compensation really matters on the finishing cuts which in their turn produce very small cutting forces which usually wouldn't be able to overcome the friction force of a conventional slide. Not true for every machine and case, but I believe that considering the above, most of the hobby users can benefit backlash compensation, especially when planning well the machining operation.
Also, backlash compensation helps programming a lathe more straight forward and easy, not thinking about the backlash on each move.
Daniel
-
But remember, even VMC's with ground ball screws and all the rest also use backlash comp. It matters for best results.
I suspect this has more to do with marketing than performance.
Jeff, you're wrong about that. They don't spend much of any time marketing their backlash compensation.
But, it matters for precise positioning before you begin many operations. For example, positioning a boring head. The boring head itself is not subject to problems with backlash once positioned. But even a little backlash that would not be noticed for other operations matters for positioning the boring head at the center of the bore. If you're using a boring head in the first place, you want it positioned as precisely as possible.
Many of the commercial controls even have a positioning mode (M-Code) that ensures this is taken into account.
BTW, the good controls allow you to set different backlash in each direction.
Cheers,
BW
-
Never saw a good VMC using a boring head ;) They can orbit a circle as good as within 0.01mm (and very often much better than that) by interpolation and get a better surface finish than they would with a boring head and plus it's much faster than using a boring head.
Dan
-
Well, you have to keep looking then, because its happening out there. Opinions vary on where the exact cutover is from helical interpolation, but 5 tenths (0.0005) is not a bad place to start depending on your VMC's accuracy.
Here is one of many threads on the subject:
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/cnc-machining/advice-using-boring-head-vmc-177986/
Note the remarks in that thread such as, "Always approach the hole from the same direction and at the same speed so the table is in the same place."
Cheers,
BW
-
Hi Bob,
Don't know... I wouldn't use a boring head if I had a good VMC with ground ball screws. My mill has rolled screws and a bit backlash but with clever programming I can orbit a circle within 0.015mm!
A bore accurate to 0.01mm is good enough to nicely fit a bearing inside, so don't think I get your point about depending on the VMC's accuracy...
Are you saying you can get better than 0.01mm using a boring head...? I (and probably most CNC workshops out there) don't have the tools and can't even measure that accurate ;)
Dan
-
Dan, read the thread. There's a whole bunch of CNC machinists discussing the topic. They will tell you what you want to know, and as I say, this is far from the only thread on the subject.
As for measuring the bores and fitting bearings, that's another topic. Have you looked at fitting and tolerances for precision bearings? It's a lot tighter than you think. See for example this Barden document (one worth downloading and having on hand if you work with bearings much):
http://tinyurl.com/23fs5et
It gets worse for higher precision bearing work.
The measuring instruments required are not that crazy, dial bore gages or Intramiks. You don't want to do this work interpolating, whether with a rolled or a ground ballscrew.
Cheers,
BW
-
Hi Bob,
Read the thread (a nice forum BTW, thanks for the reference), and that's exactly what I was saying. See replies number 6, 17, 21, 22 and 25. You can get 0.01mm tolerance and even better by interpolation on a good VMC.
I am aware about fitting tolerances recommended for precision bearings - have fitted a few and designed a few fittings ;) And I am still saying that getting better than 0.01mm is much of trial and error and by clever programming can be achieved by interpolation milling as well.
And just to give an idea about the "theoretical" tolerances we are discussing, a 10 degrees Celsius temperature difference would change the size of of a 30mm bore in aluminium by 0.006mm and twice that in steel - 0.012mm!!
Dan
-
Dan, if you want to install your bearings that way, go for it. There is a right way, a wrong way, and a way that you know works for you. Maybe this is it.
You will notice the posts you called out didn't really prevail in the thread. Since you've only just discovered PM, you wouldn't know much about the posters. AlfaGTA, for example, is one of the foremost engine builders in the world for rare vintage cars. You may want to spend some time on PM, there is a wealth of knowledge there beyond the hobby world.
At this point, it should be pretty clear why a VMC might care about backlash compensation.
Cheers,
BW
-
Hi Bob,
The posts I listed are by people who say they actually are making parts by milling whole day long to tight tolerances. These are NOT speculations. If you know how to do it right with a boring head and it works for you then no reason to not use it, especially if your machine is not a very expensive VMC.
I think this discussion is not far from becoming a scientific discussion :o so I think we have to agree to disagree on it.
Thanks,
Dan
-
I was looking for the latest on SS and this thread somehow devolved into boring vs interpolation. I'm gonna add my 2 cents here because I tried to get away from it and I can't. I have 14 yrs experience working mainly on VMC's, current machine hurco vmx64 .0002 in. repeatablilty, I don't know how anybody could want to interpolate when they could bore? Your finish, size holding ability and time spent cannot be beat with boring equipment. the only reason I can come up with that someone would want to mill a bore instead of bore is,A they don't have boring equipment B. don't know how to use it C. want the job to take more cycle time. The fact that you have stated that there probably isn't a device that can measure .0015mm(.00059in) is wrong. It's called an airgauge the ones i used we were checking bores to .0002 in. Also you stated that steel grows more than aluminium tells me who ever told you this stuff thinks they know, but they really don't know.
-
Qouting Greg from the Warp 9 site:
Re:no backlash 1 Week, 3 Days ago
I wanted to give an update. I am working on it and I am realizing I am needing to make a significant change in the way the data
inside the SS is handled. It will be for the better though. Once I get it changed I will be releasing an update without backlash comp,
followed by another one with backlash comp. I hope it won't be too much longer.
I would suggest you follow the Warp 9 Site to see what's happening relative to the SS.
RICH
-
Hi Spitter,
You are correct on all your statements. And the thermal expansion of aluminium is greater than that of steel - seems I messed things up above ;) thanks for pointing that.
Daniel