All Activity

Richard - I'll give that a try. Thanks. Ivan - That would still be a pre-defined starting point. It would be the same as the original scenario except now it would be in a different spot. It still wouldn't be a true best fit. A best fit allows the bolt circle centerpoint to move around so that all of the error from all of the individual holes is minimized. That will give a better picture than just an average, or a location to a pre-defined point. Make sense? Did I explain that sufficiently? Hope that helped.

@Andrew. L CAD files are here ---> "C:\Users\Public\Documents\Zeiss\CALYPSO\cad" on your CMM desktop computer.

Could you not add a special alignment offset/rotation? See my screenshot below. This offset allowed me to reposition the nominals to be 0,0.

The way I was reading balloon 2101 is that the surface has the UOS and an "additional" requirement. The first requirement (Note 7) would be: PROFILE| .040 U .030|A|B|C The second requirement (Note 17) would depend on what "MEASURED SURFACE" means. If measured surface = nominal surface, then size and form would be controlled by: PROFILE| .015 U .015| to no datums. if measured surface = actual surface, then only form would be controlled by: DYNAMIC PROFILE| .015| to no datums. The surface would need to be inside both profile tolerance zones.

If you switch over to Loose, you can use Alignments and then apply Best-Fit constraints.

Ya, that's what I thought. I'm going to use the constructed bolt circle as the center. Although it won't be a true best fit, it should get me reasonably close.

Can you please walk me thru what strategy I would use for the dimple so that I can clock to it? I do have a 1mm star probe and regular probe as well as some larger straight probes. I want to probe the dimple and have it find the center like how it does when you locate the probe rack, but I don't know how to do that. The dimple is much to small to do the strategies I would use if it were bigger.

Just FYI a new service pack just dropped and it looks like there are several fixes for simulation. Downloading now!

None that I'm aware of, short of putting a bogus secondary datum in there.

Any way to fix it?

It goes to the center of the DRF. If you only have a Plane as the Primary, then it will go to the center of the plane. Very annoying indeed.

Hi everyone, I am looking for the PDF drawings and CAD files for the following parts. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate my files. Would anyone be able to share them? Any help is greatly appreciated!

So I looks like they expect a very rough surface texture and they want a .015 band of surface variation ignored. If that's the case, then I think you want some type of data filtering to happen.

This is very true. They were recently bought by MiniTab. At first, I was like great, we'll get a bunch of nice MiniTab integrations. BUT NO. All they changed was switching from a perpetual license to a subscription model. Legacy clients like myself are unaffected. But I don't see any reason to upgrade ever. I'm sticking to version 4.1 and 4.3 for life.

Hi, please try to use the App "Export Volume as Slices" from our Software Store to export the volume data into a set of TIFF images. -> https://software-store.zeiss.com/de/products/apps/export-volume-as-slices Best, Lorenz

This isn't clicking in my brain. If I do not use datums, then I am violating the required DRF.

I need matched sets of three 123 and 246 blocks. All I can find are sets of two. If you have information on these, please post in here.

In the picture below, you'll see Calypso thinks the center of the bolt pattern is located a couple inches above and slightly behind the highest bolt hole in the pattern. Consequently on the report (bottom picture), the nominals are way out in left field. The amount of deviation looks to be correct but when the program actually runs, we won't be able to tell which hole is off, what direction, and how much. The machinist won't have the required information to make the adjustments.

QC-Calc is great, but they were recently acquired and they have changed their licensing structure in a very disappointing way. Be aware....

This is exactly how our RDS head behaved when it was dying. Certain angles were "bad". We were able to get around it by using one rotation over from our bad angle, but eventually had to replace the RDS head at great expense. Zeiss was not able to point to a cause for our failure and did not indicate that collisions would be a root cause.

For that number you can report min/max deviation point from all points of profile. Perhaps switching to Asme will do something. I am not at Inspect right now.

Hallo, ich arbeite mit der ISO 1101. Bei der Auswertung eines Flächenprofils mit Bezug wird erwartungsgemäß immer die doppelte Abweichung angezeigt. Meine Frage dazu: Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, die Darstellung bzw. Auswertung so umzustellen, dass nur die halbe Abweichung (Abstand zum Sollprofil) angezeigt wird? Vielen Dank im Voraus für Ihre Unterstützung.

Are the actual results showing large positional deviations, or is it just the nominals not matching the print specifications?

@Darci Burch Is this just a one off verification or an ongoing production check? Might be worth it to just outsource it to a third party inspection laboratory if you have the budget.

We also have a Keyence IM but its an older one and I haven't had much luck with small parts like this in the past so I don't know if that will be any better.