> Dear Collegs! > > I would appreciate all responses > with opinions about the AOI manufacturers that > will be listed below. First of all maybe a short > description. In my company we are just starting > with the optical inspection of our products. We > use screen printers to manufacture our products > and want to introduce an AOI system for 100% > inspection. I'm going to rent two systems to > evaluate them. It costs money that's why I would > like to ask you guys for you opinion as users > what do you thing about MVP ULTRA 850G with 6,5�m > pixel size, TRI Test Research TR 7500 with 10�m > pixel size and the system from CyberOptics with > 17�m pixel size. The MVP system has a smaller > pixel size but automatically is 100% more > expensive than the TRI system. I decided to > evaluate definitely the CyberOptics system > because of its uncial software algorithm which > allows detecting anomalies in the structure (face > recognition principle). Because the system will > not be used in a standard application (eg. > placement of 01005 elements) we do need best > possible camera resolution on the market but also > a bit of flexibility from the manufacturer side > regarding the software platform. Did anyone have > an experience with both machines MVP Ultra 850G > and TRI system TR7500? The price difference is > vast and I'm wondering if MVP is so much better > to pay for it double the price of TRI > system. Thanks in advance for all your > responses.
> Dear Collegs! > > I would appreciate all responses > with opinions about the AOI manufacturers that > will be listed below. First of all maybe a short > description. In my company we are just starting > with the optical inspection of our products. We > use screen printers to manufacture our products > and want to introduce an AOI system for 100% > inspection. I'm going to rent two systems to > evaluate them. It costs money that's why I would > like to ask you guys for you opinion as users > what do you thing about MVP ULTRA 850G with 6,5�m > pixel size, TRI Test Research TR 7500 with 10�m > pixel size and the system from CyberOptics with > 17�m pixel size. The MVP system has a smaller > pixel size but automatically is 100% more > expensive than the TRI system. I decided to > evaluate definitely the CyberOptics system > because of its uncial software algorithm which > allows detecting anomalies in the structure (face > recognition principle). Because the system will > not be used in a standard application (eg. > placement of 01005 elements) we do need best > possible camera resolution on the market but also > a bit of flexibility from the manufacturer side > regarding the software platform. Did anyone have > an experience with both machines MVP Ultra 850G > and TRI system TR7500? The price difference is > vast and I'm wondering if MVP is so much better > to pay for it double the price of TRI > system. Thanks in advance for all your > responses.
As a developer of AOI systems with close to 20 years of experience, my recommendations are as follows:
a) There are a lot of �technological terms� thrown at users such as RGB lighting, multiple cameras, pixel sizes and so on, and so on. This type of information can be misleading. As a user, you need to concentrate on the overall performance of a system and not so much how it works or what type of technology is used. b) When it comes to selecting an AOI equipment, the system must be evaluated based on future and current requirements. The most important aspect is the programming or setup time. Realistically, if you cannot start with the CAD or similar data file and inspect a board in less than a few hours, then there is a problem. Some systems can read in the CAD or placement information very quickly but require extensive �fine-tuning� to get the inspection reliability where it needs to be. c) The cost of the system is an important factor but a more realistic indicator is the total cost of ownership and not just the initial cost. In particular, attention should be paid to upgradeability and adaptability of the system. Some systems use off-the-shelf sub-systems and can be upgraded easily. For example, the PC can be upgraded to faster units. Or, the camera can be exchanged with higher resolution alternatives, if needed. At the same time, some systems can be adapted to perform different checks with minimal (if any) hardware or software changes. These systems are more �valuable� because they can be deployed for solder paste, pre-solder or post-solder inspections. The other issue is that the cost of the system does not necessarily reflect the quality or technology used with the system. Often, it reflects the cost of manufacturing in the country of origin. d) Technical support must be one of the main factors, because you will NEED IT. Of course, I mean true Technical Support and not just Moral Support. You will need someone who can come in (fast) and address your problem. In the USA or Europe, it may make sense to buy from local suppliers because often the developers of the systems will be available to troubleshoot those �difficult problems/bugs�. e) Do NOT buy a system because it is cheap. Buy a system because it works well! Some of these so called �cheap� systems cost you more in the long run because of down-time, poor inspection performance (too many false calls and false accepts) and limited use (type of inspection, PCB sizes, etc.)
reply »