DMG CTX BETA 1250 TC MANUAL IN NATURE

Practically the same weight, almost identical work envelope, almost identical motor ratings etc.Cost is going to end up within spitting distance of each other when optioned equivalently.One big difference is the Okuma uses a roller gear B, while the DMG is a direct torque motor.I know that there are a couple of very happy Multus users (looking at you Rob, Edster) on here. We are looking at installing one of these two machines in the very near future.Immediately, you would think that the Okuma is likely a much heavier duty machine, however on paper they are almost identical. It has two chucks so that we can fully finish the parts, and with the BLUM tool and workpiece probes we can do everything in a controlled manner.The machine has a linear motor on the z-axis. The advantage of this is that it has no moving mechanical components, so there is no backlash when machining parts. The TRIFIX turret with the direct drive excels in dynamic performance, allowing powerful milling. The model has two working spaces in which the upper and lower turrets can machine different.

I am assured that the CTX is made in the Gildemeister plant in Bielefield. However, like I said, when it's apples to apples, price is pretty close.I have a fondness for Gildemeister, as I used to have an old one and it was hands down the best lathe I ever ran for accuracy and finish. Okuma has a much larger tool magazine as standard, and the upgraded magazine is quite expensive on the DMG. Accordingly, not specing a lower turret or bar package, may or may not get a subspindle as the one we have is underutilised.There are a good few things that come standard (or are cheap options) on the DMG that are somewhat expensive options on the Okuma, like better coolant/swarf system, linear scales, what appears to be more advanced thermal management. Mostly aluminium, but occasional Ti and Stainless and really we work with everything from plastics to superalloys.

Cost is similar.I am not going to tempt fate by making outrageous claims of never crashing anything, but bumps and crashes are very rare here. Both have the celos front end, but DMG is Siemens, and Mori is Fanuc or Mits.From a practical perspective, the working area of the ntx is more cramped than the same tier ctx. In the UK kinda had the impression they look after their customers pretty well.Also curious what CAD CAM system will you / are you fixin to use with this / these beasties ?I asked the DMG rep the question about NT/NTX vs CTX and he said that it basically comes down to control choice. Seems the OKUMA machine would take more of pounding than the CTX but that may not be deciding factor or issue._ _Just curious as to why MAZAK was not for consideration ?. (Even though the NTXs take time to completely sort out it seems but they DO get sorted out (eventually)).As you say key difference is the Direct Drive B axis versus mechanical. Aim to sell (in their eyes) a more expensive yet potentially more reliable / less hassle machine.

Not set in stone, but it's what I know best. It will be an upgrade/repurchase in any case.Cam probably Featurecam. Not set in stone, but it's what I know best. They do not have a stellar reputation for looking after their smaller customers around here, and every time I've had them on my shortlist in the past they've been miserable to deal with.Cam probably Featurecam. I have used that rationale on previous machine purchases and I don't think it has done me any favours to be honest.The roller gear vs the torque motor, seems that the torque motor would fare better in a crash no? No mechanical interface to get damaged, the brake would presumably slip and that would be that?As far as Mazak go, no, not really interested.

).In other words the broad flat face of the B axis mill head can interfere with the jaws of the turning spindle and (sheet metal surrounding the turning spindle as well)вЂ¦ so hence a longer milling tool would be required (for proportionately smaller diameter work pieces). So you don't loose a ton of Z travel / space and need a machine that approaches 60' between centers versus 40' meaning that the machine is proportionately more rigid and is not quite so dependent on the quality of its foundation/install. , the milling head doesn't take up much room. (Seems the CTX beta has done a good job with that (design wise / design improvements) , and also the milling head is short, so when tilted 90 degrees 'sideways' for face and profile milling etc.

Dmg Ctx Beta 1250 Tc Manual In Nature

The in-brochure tolerances, accuracies and repeatability's don't seem too shabby either/ actually pretty damn solid/ good.Get them to make some critical test parts for yah.Last edited by cameraman 03-12-2019 at 05:58 PM.I really have no input. But the CTX beta doesn't seem to have extensive through casting cooling , but with the 'Magnascales' and on board thermal control with heat sensors throughout (including the scales) should do a good job throughout the day ? Would the end result be better than an Okuma U3000 (couldn't say)вЂ¦I think Direct drive versus Roller gear cam, that the latter just requires beefier housings and bearings , six of one half a dozen of the other (perhaps), but sounds in general the CTX would be a more 'Elegant' solution. Or whether the B axis mill head is quite long and takes up a lot of Z room / space / travel when tilted 90 degrees ?The CTX Beta seems like a really nice machine and agree (at least on paper) the thermal control seems a bit more 'physical' than compensatory with just heat sensors throughout but on the other hand the Direct drive motors do generate a lot of heat and hence HAVE to be actively / substantially cooled and regulated. Maybe do a sanity check for a continuum of part sizes (all lengths and diameters ) to double check any 'Dead' zones or weak / awkward cutting conditions that knacker the tolerances and surface finishes you might be going for.I'm not sure on exact geometry of the U3000 head whether its' (proportionately) more narrow and the spindle bearings tolerate greater tool bending moment. So that has some compromises too.Again seems that the CTX beta has designed around such problems quite well ?Didn't catch what your distance between centers would be and do you need a steady rest ? Or some movable platform that is more manual in nature that you can build to for supporting longer work pieces ? Sometimes the fully integrated (whizz bang cnc) Steady rest can be obstructive to the tail stock reach for certain work piece lengths, there can be a 'dead ' zone between short work piece lengths and longer work piece lengths that you still need supported in cut and twin spindle (counter spindle) is not necessarily right for that either (depending on workpiece geometry/ features to be turned and milled in fewer set-ups.).I guess what I'm trying to say maybe plan out in CAD or by similar means the work holding, your workpieces / parts and tooling you would most like to use to check that you can physically get to everything in the way you want to. In the case of an Integrex 'Like' layout with larger diameter chucks some folks have had to make their own 'step' down chucks that stick out more (smaller diameter for smaller diameter work pieces) so that a shorter tool can be brought closer to the work and the jaws (without smacking into a wide milling head).

My experience with the NTX was brief.