Machsupport Forum
Mach Discussion => General Mach Discussion => Topic started by: jrobson on April 29, 2011, 06:53:25 AM
-
Hi
Will Mach3 V4 support more than 6 axis?
-
Unlikely.
Hood
-
Thanks, bummer though.
-
why are you actually needing more axis?
Hood
-
For mill/turn you have C on the main spindle, XYZ + B on the tool section, then A on the sub spindle and you now require a 7th W(Z2) to move it forwards and backwards.
Even getting hold of an old swiss and retrofitting can require up to 12, usually less though, but if it has a sub and some live tools it has more than 6.
-
Do all axis have to be true axis? I think there will be multi spindle support in Mach4 but that was talked about a while ago so may not still be on the cards.
Hood
-
Not necessarily, and is there some info on "non true-axis" setups?
I've read somewhere that there is multi-path planning being looked into "in the future" but not sure if meant V4 or later, in which case it would mean more axis wouldn't it?
For multi-spindle it is available via plugin: http://www.fusioncnc.com/products/28-3-spindle-plug-in.aspx but no threading etc... I must look at the kflop doc's again to see if it is able to do this.
-
FYI
From Tom - Kflop, you can use 3 spindles, but your live tooling will need to be your main mach spindle for rigid tapping, but you can thread on the 2 lathe spindles still.
It would also be possible to position the sub spindle via macro rather than G-code to add an extra axis, since the sub usually doesn't need to be interpolated with the other axis's.
If there is an alternative method to do this I'd be curious how it's done...
-
Regarding the non synced axis, I have always wondered about using a second computer running Mach3 as well. It gives 6 more axis of motion via the pport.
It shouldn't be too difficult to get them to talk to each other, even if you had to use pport I/O to run the tool changer for instance. Looks like a backburner project for me.
When I get that far on one of my machines I may try it. A second cheap computer shouldn't be that big of a deal to source. I don't think that you could use modus the way it is currently implemented since both computers would be masters and one would have to be a slave.
A small PLC such as the click plc would work fine and allow for Modbus communications but I am not sure if you could do motion from it. More expensive PLC's with motion cards can do it.
The DSPMC has 8 analog outputs w/encoder feedback so you can have Mach3 do 6 coordinated axis of motion and then run the Toolchanger from the DSPMC macro that resides inside the DSPMC. IIRC
It may be possible to do this with a Galil card and the custom notify function but it is not something that I have tried.
HTH
Mike
-
The tool changer can be programmed within k-flop so to not use a mach axis for it.
But if you have 3 "c" axis's, an XYZ a second Z etc then it's a problem, if you have 2 turret's that are live you have two x's y'x and z's then still have to account for the C's for tapping the sub z, spindle C's etc...
The problem hooking up two mach's would not be in the cost of a second pc and license and hardware, more about how to properly sync it all.
-
I was thinking that you would have 6 coordinated axis and then 6 more separately coordinated axis on the second machine. You could always ask if there was a discount for Mach3 or since it was in use on the same machine would you even have to buy the second license??
Mike
-
I see, so you are thinking along the lines of setting up a sub spindle with a live lower turret on one controller, then the main spindle and upper turret on another controller.
There will be problems in case you want to start syncing though, but it would be cool as two separate lathe's where you do side one on the left and then side two on the right.
Mach is cheap, if you are prepared to spend on the hardware the extra cost for a second controller isn't an issue, but you won't get it to sync like a $30K controller.
From the swiss demo's I've been on what happens is you load two programs and they execute separately but both starting when the start button is pushed, at some stage one is given the command to wait for the other, they then sync and run a portion synced then after another command is given and they execute separately again until finished then both start again from the beginning when looped. It is the sync section that is important, which won't be possible. It is better for the controller to support 12 axis that can be separated in 6 x 6 than it is to run 6 x 6 and try and turn it into a 12.
-
I agree that 12 as opposed to 6x6 would be better and I won't even try to understand what CAM software would be like but 250 is a lot less than 30k.
For the production gus making a full time living I agree with you but for the small shop guy with time on his hands it moght be worth it.
Mike
-
Definitely.
There are a lot of production work that requires this functionality but doesn't pay enough for a $1m machine and accessories, well not here anyway, I think in the US the market is stronger for these components.
-
Simple Syncing can be as easy as a few VB scripts that talk via outputs and inputs to each other.
Or through Modio or just simple serial
Just a thought(;-)
-
Good to know, thanks.