K_seeker

It all depends on the type of application. For simpler (one axis or multiple axis with no co-ordinated motion) and slower applications stand alone controllers may be more appropraie. But if the your applications requires (or may eventually require) tight integration with your DAQ and IMAQ hardware than it's best to go with NI Motion. I once worked on an application where a camera was moved along an axis and the images were captured while it was moving - at every so many steps. Even though it was a simple application by Using NI Motions Breakpoint feature (http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/4214) I was able save on wiring and control panel space, because required signals were routed through RTSI bus and no additional wiring from stand alone motion controller was required. Another big advantage I see in using NI Motion (if you are using motion control in a Labview based test / manuafcturing system) is that it reduces my software count. This reduces programming and documentation hassles. For example if you were to use motion controller from Parker your motion control part of programming is done using Parker programming utility called Motion Planner. The Labview is most likely using ActiveX controls to interface with the motion hardware. This , in my view, makes your program less readable to a Labview programmer. Now if you need to make changes to the code you will be going back and forth between Labview and Motion Planner. By using NI only solution the software all the motion programming is done from Labview environment. In my view it's a big advantage.