Are you possitive about this? can you back it up with any evidence? because a simple search on googles image search for microstepping torque graph brings up a hell of a lot of graphs that seem to disagree. Here is a company for example with a nice explanation of it and a nice graph:
Microstepping: Myths and Realities | MICROMO
quote: "
The real compromise is that as you increase the number of microsteps per full step the INCREMENTAL torque per microstep drops off drastically. Resolution increases but accuracy will actually suffer."
I agree completely and i know this first hand.. my planetary gearbox motors struggle for torque at anything over 10x microstepping. I run them at half step. they run great, they match my R&P accuracy. And that is all that is required. if torque drop wasnt happening at just 10x then how would you explain this?
Even on my direct drive screws i see accuracy starts to drop at over 32x, there's another very true quote that explains this on that link:
"
taking an infinite number of microsteps per full step results in two-phase synchronous permanent magnet ac motor operation, with speed a function of the frequency of the ac power supply. The rotor will lag behind the rotating magnetic field until sufficient torque is generated to accommodate the load."
If you increasing steps to reduce resonance, just need to be aware of torque drop and lag affecting accuracy. when it comes to electronics you never get anything for free, amps - volts, torque - smoothness, everything has its cost so its always a compromise.
so going by that graph and the many others floating around the net exactly the same, it looks as though at 64x steps its not just 64x less torque, its a massive 97x decrease.
No point in telling someone go for 64 microsteps and you will get a resolution of 0.005 for example if their screw or r&p is 0.05. Just wasting torque. And the same goes for encoders. That was my point.