All Activity

He has definitely done in the past just do not remember how. Definitely full program.

I can vouch for Mark Foster. Best ASME class I ever took with him as the instructor.

Please ask your colleague to demonstrate what he claims he did. 😉 Because if I'm not very much mistaken, Calypso doesn't even use the clipboard when copying features and characteristics. Instead it creates an internal Smalltalk data structure in memory (an "ordered collection") to which it temporarily pushes the objects copied and from which it pastes them back to the same or a different inspection plan. However, this does only work within the currently running Calypso process. The data never leaves this environment and so can not be pasted in another process running on a different machine. Maybe your colleague was able to copy other things, like comments, PCM code or the like?

Separate the actual data to local machine and share the program folder via network works since years fine for us. But there is minimum one issue: The protocol head data is stored to the program folder. If you start a program multiple times simultaneously or in quick succession, the log header data may become inconsistent. The program that starts later will read the data from the previous program. If you use part numbers, for example, these may become mixed up. Keep in mind that CALYPSO was launched in the mid-1990s, when only a few companies had a LAN. It is rather unlikely that ZEISS will renew the core of the software until a genuine new development is launched. CAPYLSO 8.0 is “only” a long overdue 64-bit port with a more modern GDT.

Just reference @Mark Foster.2.0/ @Mark Foster to anyone or any emails you have to address. He'll set em straight! 🙃

You won't find it in a standard. It's a "rule of thumb" meant to simplify what IS in the standards.

What do you think are the advantages of doing this? Do you find a lot of wear that would otherwise not be detected? I'm trying to find reasons for my boss to buy a microscope 😁

Yes, I'd go back in and probe those circles in addition to the slot. Caliper distance between those two circles will give you what you need. I suspect caliper distance between those two slots is not "seeing" circles at the ends.

Unfortunately this isn't a solution, Kyle, though I am in the US. I'm familiar with the process in the linked KB article, which has been necessary since they broke the ability to mask and use text fields as we were doing prior to 2022 with the rollout of PiWeb. The additional characteristics appear on the report but nowhere else in the program. They do not show in the chars list so I cannot mask, mark, rename, or anything else. In my last program they just made a 70 page document into a 116 page document. The world ended here in the eyes of my internal customers. This output is way too much for my colleagues. I'm forced to avoid using the GDT positions as long as this persists. It would be really handy if Zeiss would roll out documentation on major changes like this one beyond the release notes. So many of the selections in GDT position use language which does not appear in ISO or ASME (like the "suggested" term that appears in all evaluation dropdowns) that we're forced to guess and test to discover what it all means. I believe the entire purpose of creating, selling, and supporting this (really really expensive) software is to ease the inspection burden on industry, which is to say we all have full time jobs. Those of us capable of discerning what the obtuse language means through testing are (at least in my case) very busy with daily demands, and likely none of us has a manager that wants to hear "I got the training. I just won't know how to use it without an indeterminate number of hours testing". My take: Stick with the language in the specs. If you ain't got documentation it ain't ready yet. Rant over.

And are the deviating results connected to specific elements of a pattern or is it all random? In my case it was always the first element of a 10-fold linear pattern. All the others were identical.

Yes, too many to count. The patterns are all circular and in XZ. The points A and B are only in the X axis.

To help me understand my points, I make them symmetrical over the entire surface used. If you randomly select points, its more difficult to determine what you have compared to symmetric points. I can't recall the post, but I uploaded a program demonstrating this technique with a part that has zero normal surfaces.

I carry a 7x eye loop, I look at styli every day.

Hi, We calibrate our probes weekly but I started to wonder if we should take a look at the probes under a microscope as well. Is the anyone who does this and has that routine? Have you seen any benefits from it? Do you find wear that you normally don't catch during calibration?

Based on Nobert's idea, I would create a rough outline of the launch system. Is the plate a cylindrical piece? If so, this would be a rotation in space, any outer edge as a planar rotation...

You could also create a theoretical line and intersection point between the rad and the line and check the distance.

Hi all, I need to transfer several programs from Calypso 2019 to Calypso 2014. Changing the version or copying the inspection file is not working. One of my colleagues said he used Remote Desktop to connect to the Calypso 2014 PC, with Calypso 2014 open on his left screen and Calypso 2019 open on his right screen. He said he was able to copy the features from one program to the other. However, it doesn’t work for me. Copy and paste doesn’t work in Calypso, although it does work for things like copying folders from one desktop to the other. Have you ever done this? The rdpclip.exe process is running correctly on both computers. Any ideas? Help?

Hi Rob, I’m currently working on a very similar task and came across your thread. I was wondering if you were able to find a solution for scanning without movement checks and/or exporting the raw point cloud data via the scripting interface? Any insights or updates would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! Best regards, Harry

If the part and hole pattern is symmetrical and the accuracy needed allows it, you could measure the four bores in the outer corners as circles, together with 4 circular planes very close to the edge of the hole. Then make a perpendicular between each hole and plane and intersect them with the planes. That would give you four stable points to be recalled to a big plane, which could serve as the spatial alignment.

Hii Thanks for the comment. I tried that, It worked. But again is gives another error message saying "invalid matching". Cannot compute neighbouring facets for the given start facet. And the referrence stage 1 in not computed. Any idea what to do?

But wouldn't the proper way to set that up be TP of C to AB and then use Best fit TP Callout, using the feature in the TP callout as a Datum seems wrong.

Datum C is just for stopping rotation - it's like using bestfit rotation. Nothing bad here. You still have to have correct distance from B origin.

True positions don't have to fully constrain a part. You can TP to one datum if youd like (You get only perpendicularity, but its legal). The positions apply with whatever constraints are offered. Since datums consume constraints as they are available, you need more information than just ABC to help more.