josephk
Aluminum
- Joined
- May 16, 2018
- Location
- Hudson Valley NY
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
The M560 head moves in XZ. Really close to the frame. The Y axis on the CMX extends...
Correct, but in the same time the Y axis on the M560 extends too?
Correct, but in the same time the Y axis on the M560 extends too?
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.
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.
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)
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.).
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...
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)
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?
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
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.
Notice
This website or its third-party tools process personal data (e.g. browsing data or IP addresses) and use cookies or other identifiers, which are necessary for its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. To learn more, please refer to the cookie policy. In case of sale of your personal information, you may opt out by sending us an email via our Contact Us page. To find out more about the categories of personal information collected and the purposes for which such information will be used, please refer to our privacy policy. You accept the use of cookies or other identifiers by closing or dismissing this notice, by scrolling this page, by clicking a link or button or by continuing to browse otherwise.