Well that's what I said.

The original question is whether it could be done.
It can and it has been done on a forked project.

But besides code changes, it requires a ideology change.
If you care about the advantages of 'control in one place' or instead prefer the advantages of plug and play,
then you have two great choices.

Chris M

Yes I know that is what you said I was just clarifying what TP said as you seemed to think he was " implying" something else.
I couldnt agree more, where the loop is closed is of no concern to me as long as it is closed.
Hood

Oh and BTW the SS doesnt close the loop at all and it is unlikely it ever will, the loop needs to be closed in intelligent servo drives when using the SS with servos.
Hood

So the only advantage of it is it doesn't use the parallel port? (not that that is not great is it's self)
I would think it also meters the pulses out -smoother- if the computer had bad latency.

I thought it did more then that. but I must confess I haven't researched it.

USB is surely convenient.

Chris M

The big advantage to the SS is as you suspect nice clean pulses, also it can pulse up to 40 times faster than the parallel port can, 4MHz as opposed to 100KHz.
The Ethernet SS is likely a better choice than the USB version.
Hood