Core or Shuttle? Your Working Method Decides

The wrong question, the right question

The question we hear most often is “which one is better?” There is no honest answer, because the two systems do the same job at different scales. The right question is this:

If the answer is “in sequence is enough”, it is Core. If it is “they must all be visible at once”, it is Shuttle. Everything else is detail within that decision.

Decision tree

1. How many laser reference lines does the work need? Up to six reference lines is Core’s natural territory. More than that points to Shuttle, though on its own it is not decisive.
2. Do the reference lines have to stay on at the same time? If the operator has to compare all slit widths at a glance, sequential display will not do the job.
3. Who does the setup, and when? If it is set once at changeover and left alone during production, sequential display is enough. If it is checked continuously while running, it is not.
4. How often does the recipe change? On lines that change often, the setup cycle time becomes decisive — and it is calculated together with the number of reference lines.
5. How much space does the layout allow? Core mounts above the line as a single housing. Shuttle needs a rail assembly length equal to the travel range plus the reserve area — and that space has to physically exist.

A short comparison of the two architectures

Two common mistakes

First: choosing too big. We have seen lines move to the shuttle architecture on the thought that “we will need it later” and still be running four reference lines three years on. Reserve capacity buys flexibility; unused capacity is simply cost.

Second: choosing too small. On a twenty-slit line, showing the reference lines in sequence is technically possible — but it puts the operator through a twenty-step cycle and leaves no way to compare them. The saving is paid back at every product change.

A point-by-point comparison of the two systems is in the technical table on the home page .