CMX-1100 vs M560-V

Hi everyone,

I have been following all the posts i can find on the CMX 1100v and the Genos M560V, the M560 is considered to be very rigid, could anyone explain the difference in design thet makes the CMX 1100 Less rigid?

Okuma


DMG

The M560 head moves in XZ. Really close to the frame. The Y axis on the CMX extends...

Jmaks said:

Hi everyone,

I have been following all the posts i can find on the CMX 1100v and the Genos M560V, the M560 is considered to be very rigid, could anyone explain the difference in design thet makes the CMX 1100 Less rigid?

Okuma
View attachment 239661

DMG
View attachment 239662
View attachment 239663

Click to expand...

That's why I call (tongue in cheek) the M-560V bridge-ish style... The F5 and other makino bridge style machines have the spindle a bit closer to the "breast" of the bridge... Cants out a smidge less than the m-560V.

However dig up a couple of diagrams of the Okuma M-560V looking face onto the XZ plane and you will see there is a veritable broad wall of cast iron in the XZ plane that the CMX lacks.

What is the weight difference ?


I think the CMX is an excellent design for it's weight and class and in fact Okuma originally used that layout on some of the much earlier machines.


One mo...


^^^ "Wall of iron"...




^^^^ Also compare structure of M-460V … In this case 5ax.

VS


Artful design for it's weight.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


How to "look" at the machines.

Best way to compare these two machines "Mentally" in terms of distribution or "Iron", look at the CMX side on YZ plane compared with M-560V face on in ZX plane... in both orientations spindle moves left and right... in both orientations Table moves to and fro… (hither/yon... in an' out. )… That way you get to visualize the lack of iron for the CMX (comparatively) yet in some sense admire it's structure for it's lesser weight.

dstryr said:

The M560 head moves in XZ. Really close to the frame. The Y axis on the CMX extends...

Click to expand...

Correct, but in the same time the Y axis on the M560 extends too?

Jmaks said:

Correct, but in the same time the Y axis on the M560 extends too?

Click to expand...

Not really, "Y" is on the table for the 560 and "x" is on the table for the 1100

So on the 560 the spindle never gets any farther away from the column.

Jmaks said:

Correct, but in the same time the Y axis on the M560 extends too?

Click to expand...

The Y axis on the M560 is on the table... SO the table moves in and out. Head stays planted

*edit* CSharp beat me to it*

The 560 is a badass machine. If they offered it with a Fanuc or Siemens I'd probably have 1-2

When the head is extended all the way on the CMX its still the same loop as the M560V or maybe even less due to the large gussets.

Jmaks said:

When the head is extended all the way on the CMX its still the same loop as the M560V or maybe even less due to the large gussets.

Click to expand...

to re-iterate / added up there late:

How to "look" at the machines.

Best way to compare these two machines "Mentally" in terms of distribution or "Iron", look at the CMX side on, facing the YZ plane compared with M-560V face on in ZX plane... in both orientations spindle moves left and right... in both orientations Table moves to and fro… (hither/yon... in an' out. )… That way you get to visualize the lack of iron for the CMX (comparatively) yet in some sense admire it's structure for it's lesser weight.

12,000 lbs vs 15,000 lbs ++ MUCH less torsion in the spindle head assembly when actually cutting when table moves in Y direction against the spindle in cut, similarly less torsional distortion when M-560v cuts in X direction due to wide stance bridge / bridged structure + higher mass.

The CMX was meant to be a replacement for the Dura Vertical … and then DMG MORI drove the bus off the cliff with the new NVX (2nd gen) price structure... As much as very top drawer bridge style Makino best mold machines (V56i), yet it's a C-frame ? ..? ..????? I don't know what Dr Mori is smoking but I guess it's his "Trip".

cameraman said:

That's why I call (tongue in cheek) the M-560V bridge-ish style... The F5 and other makino bridge style machines have the spindle a bit closer to the "breast" of the bridge... Cants out a smidge less than the m-560V.

However dig up a couple of diagrams of the Okuma M-560V looking face onto the XZ plane and you will see there is a veritable broad wall of cast iron in the XZ plane that the CMX lacks.

What is the weight difference ?


I think the CMX is an excellent design for it's weight and class and in fact Okuma originally used that layout on some of the much earlier machines.


One mo...

^^^ "Wall of iron"...

^^^^ Also compare structure of M-460V … In this case 5ax.

VS

Artful design for it's weight.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


How to "look" at the machines.

Best way to compare these two machines "Mentally" in terms of distribution or "Iron", look at the CMX side on YZ plane compared with M-560V face on in ZX plane... in both orientations spindle moves left and right... in both orientations Table moves to and fro… (hither/yon... in an' out. )… That way you get to visualize the lack of iron for the CMX (comparatively) yet in some sense admire it's structure for it's lesser weight.

Click to expand...

Is the difference significant enough to choose Okuma over Fanuc/Siemens controls?

(I talked to DMG at IMTS, They claimed to be far ahead in control technology then Okuma)

Jmaks said:

Is the difference significant enough to choose Okuma over Fanuc/Siemens controls?

(I talked to DMG at IMTS, They claimed to be far ahead in control technology then Okuma)

Click to expand...

Ooooooh Ouch...


I'll come back to that...

Not a quick answer.

Requires clear thinking and some diplomacy there but most folks that actually run Okuma machines would trust the OSP control with their life. {some would go as far to say that the control is "Powerful" which means that more advanced lower level "Expert" features (that are relevant to very advanced machinists) are easier to implement.

"Advanced" versus very reliable yet sophisticated.

On this forum siemens back side gets "Smacked" about a bit (longevity or lack thereof).


Celos has had issues due to code migration where they run too many programs and may or may not have ironed out slow sequential problems... [machines waiting a long time to "clear" to decide to make tool changes etc.].


How much programming do you want to do on the control ?

With DMG they have always pushed me in the direction of Heidenhain (mainly for 5 axis and better modelling for collision avoidance directly on the control.).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Here's why I would pick an M-560V over a CMX... More rigid in cut and machine lasts longer and better surface finishes + near mold like contouring with NURBS and better thermal control (PROVEN).

(You know what you are going to get... On the other hand folks that have bought the CMX's seem to like them ? However the DDRT DMG mori 4th axis rotary is extremely accurate compared to more conventional 4th axis rotaries (if you need that)).

So kinda comes down to what do you like ? Unless there is a specific application requirement ?

Presumably the CMX is quite a bit "Cheaper" than the M-560v ?


These days I don't discriminate by "Controls", other than contouring ability and practical speed of processing (slower older controls can have more artful work arounds too).

______________________________

@Jmaks in your territory / geographical location what would you consider as having better technical support if things go awry/haywire ?

cameraman said:

Ohhhhhh Ouch...


I'll come back to that...

Not a quick answer.

Requires clear thinking and some diplomacy there but most folks that actually run Okuma machines would trust the OSP control with their life.

"Advanced" versus very reliable yet sophisticated.

On this forum siemens back side gets "Smacked" about a bit (longevity or lack thereof).


Celos has had issues due to code migration where they run too many programs and may or may not have ironed out slow sequential problems... [machines waiting a long time to "clear" to decide to make tool changes etc.].


How much programming do you want to do on the control ?

With DMG they have always pushed me in the direction of Heidenhain (mainly for 5 axis and better modelling for collision avoidance directly on the control.).

Click to expand...

I would like to spend the least amount of time at the machine control, That includes loading programs, probing cycles, offsets, But i have never tried any Mazak or Okuma Mill.

You are basically saying that Okuma is like Apple and DMG is like Android...

The CMX design is very close to what Mori used back in the early 90s on their M300L model. Worked OK, but IME was never a very robust design. After 10 or so years use, there was always measurable droop in the Y axis as one moved it in the negative direction.

Despite being a long time Mori fan, I'd go Okuma in this choice all the way. Better design. Excellent control

Jmaks said:

I would like to spend the least amount of time at the machine control, That includes loading programs, probing cycles, offsets, But i have never tried any Mazak or Okuma Mill.

You are basically saying that Okuma is like Apple and DMG is like Android...

Click to expand...

Can't make that comparison.

DMG, celos flashy over designed not well engineered bugy and still needs substantial rationalization and stuff to sort out. However looks nice … (is getting better) and has tools to help disorganized people like me organize sh*t on the control. I don't like a touch screen key board and the increased ability to thumb finger futz stuff up on the control + smudge screen technology.

OKUMA control relatively bomb proof no extraneous BS but 100 to 1000 better user experience than an older Fanuc control. + ability to write Apps.

MAZAK controls check out for yourself. Technologically the most advanced IMO but wish they had not overdesigned the current "Smooth X" control. Good bandwidth and nicer ways to three dimensionally interrogate complex 3d tool paths + a bunch of stuff that's more relevant to turning centers/ mill turn (mazatrol taken the to MAX can do some surprising things if you are up sh*t creek without a paddle/in a pinch).

Ken Okuyama's design work with MAZAK was excellent but the "style" guide he left with MAZAK has gone a little too "cray cray" smidge over done (to my taste/eye)... (they haven't quite completely driven it off the cliff) If they could dial that back two clicks halfway to the generation of control they had before that would be a world class design IMO.


The siemens on CMX may be a much simpler and nicer experience too (but if you are not going to spend a lot of time at the control even a modern Fanuc is much more tolerable these days). Basic Siemens control there is a lot on the control that is helpful and well design IMO but not so popular in the USA as it in Europe.

Jmaks said:

Is the difference significant enough to choose Okuma over Fanuc/Siemens controls?

(I talked to DMG at IMTS, They claimed to be far ahead in control technology then Okuma)

Click to expand...

I've always wondered WTF this means in the modern context, especially in a 3 axis VMC.

In my world, a controller is just an interface to set up tools, set up work coordinates, and hit cycle start. All my "advanced" stuff happens on the CAM side.

Get into 5 axis stuff, and obviously the nice controls have some neat tricks up their sleeve (tool centerpoint control, dynamic offsets, etc). Even Haas has that stuff, so beyond that, what makes DMG claim their control is more advanced than OSP300? More importantly, how much of that "advancement" has real-world application and how much is just theoretical salesman feature list BS?

gkoenig said:

I've always wondered WTF this means in the modern context, especially in a 3 axis VMC.

In my world, a controller is just an interface to set up tools, set up work coordinates, and hit cycle start. All my "advanced" stuff happens on the CAM side.

Get into 5 axis stuff, and obviously the nice controls have some neat tricks up their sleeve (tool centerpoint control, dynamic offsets, etc). Even Haas has that stuff, so beyond that, what makes DMG claim their control is more advanced than OSP300? More importantly, how much of that "advancement" has real-world application and how much is just theoretical salesman feature list BS?

Click to expand...

Check out this post starting at #46, Its about Brother not Okuma, Obviously there is some difference in controllers, Especially the motion profiles.
https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/cnc-machining/new-cnc-purchase-decision-m560v-vs-brother-s650x1-354932/index3.html

Jmaks said:

Check out this post starting at #46, Its about Brother not Okuma, Obviously there is some difference in controllers, Especially the motion profiles.
https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/cnc-machining/new-cnc-purchase-decision-m560v-vs-brother-s650x1-354932/index3.html

Click to expand...

I was pretty deep in that thread and it wasn't driven by a technology question. It's more of Brother having a very unique philosophy about machine motion control and accuracy/speed modes (as well as some documentation and default setting SNAFUs that are getting sorted out now). Okuma has HiCut, Haas has High Speed Machining (G198), Fanuc has AICC, Brother has Mode BII.

Really though, I'm genuinely curious as to what the more "advanced" stuff out there is, and if folks are acutually using it in the real world. I know Heidenhein literature talks about chatter controls, machine elasticity compensation, active vibation dampening, etc... but how often is all this stuff applied? All controls are doing *some* level of this kinda stuff set at the factory during tuning and calibration.

Honestly the options you have here for the CMX seem pretty good and you are not having to put up with the "specialness" of the CELOS...

I think the only complaint that folks have about the CMX is they wish it had a 20K (rpm) spindle option.

I don't know if that changed or not ?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


mentally I tend to think of OSP/Okuma as "Military grade" (+ BOEING's involvement at a key period).

and Fanuc as "Robot grade".

I don't have a mental label for CELOS …

The controls for CMX you have MAPS IV (on Fanuc), Siemens and Heidenhain and real buttons... (what a concept).[Not much to go wrong really ?].

What is the price difference between CMX versus m-560V..?

I think the aim of the CMX verticals is to replace the Dura vertical but also offer something in the market that might be a better alternative to a HAAS (mechanically) at a reasonable price point (MAZAK vertical is more pricey by comparison (c-frame)).

_________________________________________________

M-560 v has higher spindle torque almost 2x that of the CMX... (across range of matching RPMs).

Question for those here who have the 560 - How well does the 560 handle heavier cuts towards the left/right ends of the table? Say you have vises all the way down the table - is there a noticeable difference in rigidity when cutting in the center of the table (inline with ballscrew) vs towards the far ends of the table?

To me it would seem there would be a tendency for the table to 'twist' in XY direction (however so slightly?) since the drive mechanism is in the center? Wouldn't you want a ballscrew at each end of the table? Unless the trucks on Yaxis are that far apart?

On the CMX, the table moves long way's in X.. so it seems like the longer distance between the trucks on X would lessen this effect when cutting near Yaxis ends, no?

Or is this not really a problem on these machines?

thesidetalker,

Your concern about the off-center cutting forces twisting the table around the Z axis (XY plane) happens on every axis of every machine, especially the ones with longer spindle cartridges that extend far below the milling headstock. For any plane (xy, xz, yz) in the machine, look at the area between the linear trucks or boxways relative to the cantilever of each axis. This is the best way to judge rigidity; machines will a lot of area, and little cantilever will be the most rigid. Machines with a smaller area and more cantilever will be less rigid. This is a trade off between rigidity and machining envelope size for any machine design.

The CMX design has its least-rigid zone near the surface of the table closest to the operator, since at that area both the Z and Y axes are extended as far away from their linear rails as possible. Extending the Y axis reduces rigidity just like extending the Z axis.

The M560 design is more symmetrical because of the dual column, so its least rigid area is closest to the surface of the table when the Z axis is all the way down, and at the far X+ X- ends of the table (although this has less of an effect since the linear trucks are spaced pretty well).

I checked out both machines in person and got quotes for both. The M560 was 10-20 thousand dollars more expensive for equivalent options; I've seen on this forum that their prices change drastically from year to year for the M560, someone on here said it was just under 100k a few years ago. They got lucky!


The M560 has a faster and more powerful spindle by far, but the CMX looks like a spaceship from the outside.

thesidetalker said:

Question for those here who have the 560 - How well does the 560 handle heavier cuts towards the left/right ends of the table? Say you have vises all the way down the table - is there a noticeable difference in rigidity when cutting in the center of the table (inline with ballscrew) vs towards the far ends of the table?

To me it would seem there would be a tendency for the table to 'twist' in XY direction (however so slightly?) since the drive mechanism is in the center? Wouldn't you want a ballscrew at each end of the table? Unless the trucks on Yaxis are that far apart?

On the CMX, the table moves long way's in X.. so it seems like the longer distance between the trucks on X would lessen this effect when cutting near Yaxis ends, no?

Or is this not really a problem on these machines?

Click to expand...

I have to admit that's an excellent question...

Generic Default said:

thesidetalker,

Your concern about the off-center cutting forces twisting the table around the Z axis (XY plane) happens on every axis of every machine, especially the ones with longer spindle cartridges that extend far below the milling headstock. For any plane (xy, xz, yz) in the machine, look at the area between the linear trucks or boxways relative to the cantilever of each axis. This is the best way to judge rigidity; machines will a lot of area, and little cantilever will be the most rigid. Machines with a smaller area and more cantilever will be less rigid. This is a trade off between rigidity and machining envelope size for any machine design.

The CMX design has its least-rigid zone near the surface of the table closest to the operator, since at that area both the Z and Y axes are extended as far away from their linear rails as possible. Extending the Y axis reduces rigidity just like extending the Z axis.

The M560 design is more symmetrical because of the dual column, so its least rigid area is closest to the surface of the table when the Z axis is all the way down, and at the far X+ X- ends of the table (although this has less of an effect since the linear trucks are spaced pretty well).

I checked out both machines in person and got quotes for both. The M560 was 10-20 thousand dollars more expensive for equivalent options; I've seen on this forum that their prices change drastically from year to year for the M560, someone on here said it was just under 100k a few years ago. They got lucky!


The M560 has a faster and more powerful spindle by far, but the CMX looks like a spaceship from the outside.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I don't know how these machines "Do it"... centrally driven table that travels straight … Under big asymmetric cutting loads + inertia … There must be a f*ck of a lot of pre-load holding that all together.


For "Peeps" that have an M-560V I wonder if that shows up at all for day to day work ? (probably not) rotation from a 20" center point / point of rotation … one "Tenth" play rotationally (in XY plane) while cutting in Y direction might not show up at all.



Hermle use only two trucks on a piece on each side of the traveling gantry and have a third rail set back with the ball screw so the whole overhead assembly rides on 3 pads and is driven from the central ball screw assembly. (Pretty clever).

Kitamuras sometimes used twin driven ball screws... And kinda interested in the new (to be released) Hardinge Bridgeport V 1320 that HAS twin ball screws driven (honestly for length of table really good idea !) especially if you put a trunnion or heavy 4th axis on one end of table... However I have recently learnt that random access tool changes might be more stubbornly random than what one might have initially supposed or would naturally anticipate.

I really don't understand why a more "long and floppy" machine like a Haas VF6 / VM6 does not have twin ball screws for Y axis ?

I feel like if Makino don't use twin ball screw drives for their tables then within limits single drive must be rigid enough, although there are not super heavy cuts on their mold machines... Hmmmm