I’ve had my ATC for a month or so and, after a few hiccups in getting it configured, it has operated exactly as intended. It’s a neat solution to the tool changer problem and is well designed.
I just don’t think it’s for me, though.
Here are a couple of reasons why:
• 4 slots aren’t really enough. Because you need to set up the tool library in Vectric, in the WebUI and the Masso and keep them in sync, changing the 4 tools in the ATC on a job-to-job basis is kind of a pain. I think it would be much better to have 8 (or more) slots so that the likelihood of having the bit you want in one of the slots would be higher. With 4 bits preloaded, there’s a decent chance that you’re going to need to manually load a tool (which diminishes the value of the ATC) or you’re going to pick bits based on what’s loaded instead of what’s the best bit for the job.
• I’m not using my CNC on a production basis. I’m a hobbyist which means that I’m typically running any given job just once or a few times in a row. I’m not going to get the economy of scale on tool changes that someone cutting out dozens of the same parts (with the same few bits) would get.
• It injects complexity that I don’t need. Again, as a hobbyist, I’m not running the same job over and over during the day. Although it isn’t that hard to run the right Load/Sync/Unload subroutines from the WebUI, it is harder than just running an M6 command on the Masso to get things initialized.
• I get better dust collection from a Z-independent shroud than I get from one that mounts to the spindle because I can set the height of the bristles without regard to how deep/shallow the bit is going to be cutting.
• The organization of files on the thumb drive irritates me. This is just a personal preference, but I like having more than 1 job on my thumb drive and I like having them organized under folders so that I don’t have to scroll through a long list to find the file I want. The ATC/Masso wants the subroutines to be in the same folder as the job I’m running so now I have a long list to scroll through to get to what I want. Yes, it’s minor, but I don’t like it and I wish there was a way to specify a search path for the subroutines from the WebUI so that I could organize the files in the way that makes sense to me.
I have run several dozen jobs on it and feel confident that I have the sequence of operation worked out but, in the end, I just haven’t seen a payoff for the level of effort required to set it up in the first place.
Recently, I uninstalled it and put the Masso settings back to their pre-ATC states. I think I’m going to hang on to it for a little while to see if I find a use-case that would lead me to re-install it. If I don’t find one, I’ll probably put my ATC up on the For Sale board and let someone else get the extra slots that would make the tool more useful.
Again, it’s a well designed tool that functions reliably as designed but I don’t think it’s a must have for a person like me who isn’t running the CNC like a workhorse.
Agreed — it’s not for everyone, and we made sure to include that in the listing.
Just as an FYI: You can mount multiple ATCs together if you’d like to run more than four tools.
That said, it does add a level of complexity that newer users might not be familiar with, so it’s always good to consider your comfort level and workflow needs.
I ordered the package last November that included the ATC so that’s why I got it.
I don’t have any complaints about the tool itself; it just isn’t the best fit for my usage and workflow…that is with the 4 slots, anyway…
I posted this up to help folks that might be on the fence about whether to get it or not…I think that if you have projects that you are going to create multiples of or are especially long running, the ATC could be a real help…if you don’t, that money might be better directed at things like hold-downs/clamps/bits/other consumables.
Same, and I am posting mine for sale. It just adds more things you have to remember and think about when doing a job. If the Masso controller had memory to install all the sub programs it would help.
Of course this doesn’t address all of your concerns, but in terms of complexity and file organization, you may want to use the native RapidChange support in Masso 5.10. While there are pros and cons of the subroutines vs. Masso approaches, I think using the native Masso integration is simpler and cleaner at least from a file management perspective (no subroutines). I do agree that 4 pockets can be limiting … but tethering 2 together will address that (assuming 8 pockets is enough). I found the tethering easier to get going using the native Masso approach since you have more control over the individual pocket coordinates and the RapidChange isn’t very forgiving with this and every pocket needs to be dead on or else it won’t pickup the tools. Not only was it easier to get working but I personally prefer the simplicity of the Masso config over the subroutines. Maybe give this a try before giving up on it and selling the RapidChange
I have an elite journeyman. with the addition of a revolution 4th axis there is not enough room on the y axis to install more than one 4 pocket ATC. I wish I had thought of this before buying an ATC I may have to install it on the x after all which would preclude doing any tiling
Native Rapid Change ATC support on Masso 5.10 is the way to go in my opinion.. much easier to setup and use, plus, you can specify the XY coordinates of each individual pocket (so you could also add one one the X axis). No need for subroutines, no need to sync the correct pocket when you power up Masso… etc.
My ONLY gripe is the fact that you cannot use automatic + manual changes as part of a single program…. But I think they are working on that. I have 8 pockets so not a problem for me so far. Works 100% for me and very simple once set up
