Hello Guest it is August 11, 2020, 03:52:57 PM

Author Topic: Any Practical, Working, Supported Alternatives to the Parallel Port  (Read 5919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Any Practical, Working, Supported Alternatives to the Parallel Port
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2014, 08:01:47 AM »
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Smoothstepper seems to do everything I need so is the top candidate at the moment.

Dubble - i take it you are the UC********* developer? You're the first mention i've found of the threading capability on the internet.
Re: Any Practical, Working, Supported Alternatives to the Parallel Port
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2014, 03:23:43 PM »
Yep, I'm one of the developers at CNCdrive Kft.
And the UC100 and UC300 can basicly do all what the SS can do, except it has not that high output stepping frequency, but especially the UC300 has some advanced functions compared to the SS,
like the analog inputs which you can use for example to feedrate override and spindle speed override with externally connected potentiometer, or just map that input into an internal variable and control other things using the variable value... it has analog outputs too. And there is a setup screen where you can attach any Mach3 internal functions to any inputs with simply selecting the function from a dropdown list.
And I was not talking about that the UC300-5LPT has 84 I/Os in total, can be useful for complex machines.
So, we have some advanced functions....

The UC devices could always (I mean from the very beginning) do threading with the single slot sensor, this is the same what MAch3 is capable of doing by itself.

And you know finding real info on the internet is mostly not easy or the informations can be missleading, because customers who are satisfied with a device mostly not writting anything on forums, because they are satisfied and using the device instead of writting on forums. :)

Offline khalid

*
  •  213 213
    • View Profile
    • My Wood carving
Re: Any Practical, Working, Supported Alternatives to the Parallel Port
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2014, 04:47:16 AM »
I am using UC100 and i really loved it:) The weired thing is i can't run the machine (Router 5ft x 5ft) at a speed higher than 200IPM in CV mode, if i go higher the rounding cornor in CV make the 3D carving pathetic:(. My router can rapid at 2100IPM using UC100 at 100KHz. ithout loosing step.

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,846 25,846
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Any Practical, Working, Supported Alternatives to the Parallel Port
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2014, 05:04:17 AM »
Acceleration is what leads to corner rounding, the faster the accel you have the less potential for rounding you have.
Hood
Re: Any Practical, Working, Supported Alternatives to the Parallel Port
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2014, 05:21:03 AM »
Khalid.

Mach3 is who precalculates the path and not the UC100, so the rounding of the corners are calculated by Mach3.
Also it is logical that it rounds the corners in CV mode, because the controller tries to keep the velocity constant which is not possible
in sharp corners as the machine axis need to be deccelerated and accelerated to go into and out of the corner.
The corners could be more sharp if you set the acceleraions of the machine axis higher.
(If your machine mechanics can tolerate that.)

If your machine could do infinate acceleration and decceleration then the corners would be sharp,
because then there would be no need to do any acceleration/decceleraion paths, so the time for these could be zero.

And you may set the CV stop angle to for example 89° then for corners on rectangle shapes will still be sharp
as Mach3 will cancel the CV mode on 90° angles.