Rated load across the delivered base runs from 20 kg to 35,000 kg, spanning 215 delivered configurations in 15 platform lines. Almost none are repeats, so the number that matters is not our maximum but whether your figure sits inside a band we have built in before.

The published ranges per platform line are in the controlled specification document, and note that rated structural load and usable payload are different quantities — ask which one any supplier is quoting.

There is no list price, and a supplier who quotes one before knowing your load and trajectory is quoting a different machine. The dominant driver by a wide margin is payload multiplied by acceleration, because together they set peak actuator force, which sizes the cylinders, motors, drives, structure and foundation.

Two platforms with the same stated payload can differ several-fold if one is specified for twice the acceleration. The six cost drivers are set out in the buying guide, along with the costs that sit outside the platform price.

Across the delivered base, linear velocity reaches 1,600 mm/s and acceleration 1 g — but not on the same machine, and not at every payload.

Acceleration falls as moving mass rises: a 35,000 kg marine table is recorded at 0.2 g while a 100 kg stabilised deck reaches 0.8 g. Any acceleration figure quoted without the gross moving load it was measured at is not usable. The sizing guide shows how the three constrain each other.

It depends on what the platform is for, and on which of two different quantities you are being shown. On the precision positioning line, positioning accuracy is 0.01° and 0.1 mm, with repeatability of 0.005° and 0.05 mm. Motion platforms built for cueing are specified quite differently.

More important than the number: a figure measured under load with a laser system and a figure derived from encoder resolution look identical on a datasheet and can differ by an order of magnitude. We verify externally. The glossary explains the distinction.

Because the honest answer depends on three things that vary enormously: how much engineering the configuration needs, whether a previous delivered configuration is close enough to adapt, and current workload. A figure quoted before the engineering review is a guess presented as a commitment.

What we will do is tell you at enquiry which of those three is driving your case, and confirm a date with the quotation. If you have a fixed installation window, say so at enquiry rather than at order — it sometimes changes the configuration we recommend.

The question to answer first is whether surge, sway and yaw carry information your task actually depends on. For many training and test applications they do not, and three axes deliver the required cue at lower cost and in a smaller envelope; for others the absence of those axes makes the platform unfit for purpose.

The comparison guide works through which axes each configuration gives you, including what tilt coordination can and cannot substitute for.

We build all-electric platforms, so treat this answer as interested and check it elsewhere. The short version: hydraulic still genuinely wins on very high sustained force in a small package, and on projects where an existing hydraulic infrastructure is already installed and maintained.

For most industrial and research work below that threshold, electric wins on noise, maintenance, room services and positional stability. The comparison sets out both cases, including where we are the wrong supplier.

Every mechanical component is designed to more than three times rated load, with finite-element verification applied to the servo cylinders at that factor.

Structural and modal behaviour is solved twice by independent methods — finite element in ANSYS and multibody dynamics in ADAMS — and disagreement between the two is treated as a finding rather than smoothed over. Workspace is analysed by Monte Carlo sampling rather than boundary assumption.