All Activity

Keep in mind how each plane is being evaluated as well. Outer Tangential/Inner Tangential/LSQ. Each giving you the min/max/average distance respectively.

We often use caliper distance to cover min-max. Then cartesian distance is a good one. I would never use just XYZ from features - mostly it's one corner on planes or origin of cylinder. If you have intersections or circles, then reporting XYZ is ok if it's according to drawing ( like from center of block and you would have to place theoretical feature into origin of that alignment )

Thank you!

Cartesian is almost always the correct answer with plane to plane distances. the important nuance here is if the two planes are differently sized, to select the smaller plane for feature1 and the larger plane for feature2. the evaluation is from the center of feature 1 perpendicular to feature 2. below is an illustration citing the reason for small feature as feature1.

Hi! Having a discussion about the appropriate way to measure the distance between planes. One party says to just pick the Z direction. The other says to use the cartesian distance. The cartesian distance happens to match the supplier. I don't fully understand how the distances are calculated in the the magic box that is calypso... Any insight would be greatly appreciated! 🙂

DuraMax simulation is broken too. The stylus system shows to be in the correct orientation, the stylus system database shows the correct coordinates/orientation, but it doesn't measure the part, and show probing object shows the stylus rotated 90. 😭

Hi William, Due to past challenges related to account verification and compliance requirements, we currently restrict registrations to corporate email domains. This helps ensure secure access and proper alignment with our licensing policies. Please note that it is possible to move everything from one account to another, so he would not lose anything if he has to change his company address.

Hello You can call our hotline 1 800 327-9735 and they can open a ticket for you and send to our AMS team and someone from AMS team will contact you

The Probing Behavior that you select during Qualification has no impact on the Qualification itself. It will, no matter what, still perform a Passive Qualification at all three "forces". The only thing setting the Probing Behavior at the time of Qualification does is set the default behavior of measurement for every feature strategy that uses that tip - you can always still go back to Resources - Features Settings Editor and change the behavior. The probing dynamics is a huge box of things because I would say that it depends on the machine, and what you are trying to measure. For DuraMax and O-Inspect (non-air bearing machines) we've always recommended a 30% probing dynamics across the board. One thing that would cause you to drop the probing dynamics to an even lower value is the size of the feature you are trying to measure, and the direction you are coming from. I'm not certain you've picked up on the fact that the XXT works via deflection of the mechanical spring inside of it. If you probe from the radial directions (+Y, +X, -Y-, -X) a lot of times you will see if kind of "wiggle" on the surface when it makes contact (you can also sometimes see this probing in the -Z direction as well). If it is a large surface (like something on the CAD Cube) it probably doesn't matter, but if you are trying to measure a tiny land, then you could potentially run into issues (especially as the probe size gets smaller and smaller).

I ended up cheating, and created a group of characteristics for each slot that is the run order. It was the easiest solution to my problem, but I'd like to eventually learn a much better way of handling this issue. I went with inquireList instead of inquireText to help with operators not entering the wrong values, but maybe inquireText is a better longer term solution. The main issue at the end of it all is that the features have to run in a specific order due to the way it is programmed. I thought the Dynamic Mini-Plan would help make it easier to run from the feature side.

Yeah, I have installed 7.8 alongside 8.0 just to use simulation. I program with 7.8 and switch to 8.0 to modify plans already saved in 8.0. Curiously, 7.8 still has broken rotation of XTR in simulation, although a fix was promised a few service packs ago. With 8.0, it rotates, but its non-functional as you've said, so not usable. There have always been bugs in Calypso, but it seems they're more severe recently. I've tried opening the 8.0 plans with 7.8 by changing the version file, and it worked fine on a few plans I've tested - but piweb is a nogo ( something about updated database etc.). Hopefully, the next service pack actually fixes these things.

Hello Matthias, thanks for the reply, this is exactly what I needed. I agree with Devon, this is much appreciated and will unlock some crazy features on our side, in term of report automation 🙂 Thanks & einen schönen Tag noch. Benjamin

Hi Brian, the CSV stages is somewhat predefined, but you could edit your table to show the measured values instead of the deviations: stages measured value.mp4 (the header should be changed from "DEV" to stage name for example I just realized) Nanno

Oo, that’s great. I really appreciate it. Thanks 🙂

My co-worker that has a tremendous amount of knowledge on the CT's and GOM/Zeiss inspect cannot login b/c his account is not tied to his company email. He does not want his account tied to the company email. He won't be a part of the community here unless he can use his existing email. One of the things he said, was he finally found out how to create bonus on a positional check on a non-feature of size. Given two random hit points anywhere in space, he was able to pass along a linear size distance and have that bonus calculation flow thru to to GDT positional check, his workflow was as creative as I've seen and I've been programming PCDMIS for 20+ yrs. He was considering sharing his workflow with the community, but he cannot login anymore so he feels like you betrayed him.

This might help Understanding Probing Behavior and Probing Dynamics in ZEISS Calypso.pdf

What software are you using which can process numbers without tolerance? You could possibly process that qdas file by your own application. Being in ZEISS Inspect you possibly have a Python.

How much dynamic you need? I don't know how your program is written for group sections, but you could possibly obtain number of groups to have a dynamic number of max slots. How much you insist on inquireList selection? You could have it easier with just text: "1-12,34,56" this text can be processed to have multiple selection or written as select from-to and exclude with asterisk like: "1-50*34" or even with brackets something. I know somewhere were shown steps to make dynamic list so you don't need to write all options for select. Unfortunately i don't have an PCM, so i would rely on someone's reaction.

After automatically extracting volumetric elements, polygonizing the extracted area may cause errors in background grayscale values or material positioning. Following material recognition processing, two distinct grayscale values may appear for different materials. See video for details. Question 1: How can I determine whether the grayscale value for Material 1 or Material 2 is correct? What is the difference between the two? Question 2: How can I quickly identify the correct background grayscale value and the correct material grayscale value (Material 1 or Material 2) using a script? 录制_2025_09_06_19_38_02_196.mp4

Hello, In preparation for doing a 2D strain analysis, I would like to change the default time step (1 s) for all stages (imported as an image series) to match the real time step (0.00005 s) in the experiments. Previously, I have been able to do so by following these steps: "RMB on the time line -> Manage Stages -> Select all stages in the pop up window -> Edit Time Stamp". However, for some reason, I cannot longer select all stages in the pop up window. The normal procedure (1. click on first stage, 2. press and hold Shift key, 3. click on the last stage) does not work anymore. Is this a bug on the software? Is there an alternative way to edit all time stamps simultaneously? I am using the pro version of Zeiss Correlate, Zeiss Inspect 2025.3.1.6 Thank you in advance

No problem, @Stan Schnuerer. Other possible causes are running PiWeb via Windows administrator privileges (which should not be activated), as well as saving to a network drive (which can work but is also often known to be glitchy).

I found this old post: qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/4454-curve-piweb-graphics-element/?do=findComment&comment=13212 Hope this helps you.

I work at a machine shop that has 6 CMM's 3 Duramax, 2 Contura's and a Prismo. The oldest one has been here since 2011. Each have a great number of programs. For some programs there are multiple programs to very certain machining ops. My concern is, I just upgraded the Prismo to 8.0. When I started looking at the programs, I noticed that the file path for the output of the data is gone. [Resources>>Name of output files>>...for this Measurement Plan] We send data for all parts to a network location to a folder that is specific for the part number being ran no matter what CMM it runs on. These all run on older versions of Calypso 6.6 and 6.8 so they still use the old "presentation" printout. Now that is gone in 8.0 because Pi-Web is the go to. This is an issue. Luckily the Prismo does have that many programs, but its still upwards of 100 with some have several programs within a certain part number. I'm going have to open every single program and re-define the output of the report to the desired network location.

Have you tried deleting the program from autorun and then re-loading it?

@Tom Oakes I believe you can also just turn it off in Plan - Navigation - Use Sorted Features List for Optimized Navigation.