All Activity

nice, so we can write some PCM code without licence

Hi all, there is also a free webinar: PMI in metrology It is not software specific and should give you a good idea of the whole process. Nanno

Hi Peter, please also have a look at this article about MMR: ZEISS Quality Tech Guide With MMR you are analysing an assembly situation, so if the Diameter is out of tolerance, it will simply not fit - there is no "additional tolerance" left for the position -> it's calculated. If nothing else is displayed on the drawing, linear size with min/max local size would be the standard. ISO uses the extracted surface. If you are interested, you can create the check with high tolerances, so you can create and calculate it and switch between extracted surface and associated element to see the difference in the tolerance zone (make sure to show the tolerance/virtual condition in the properties of the positional check). There is an AUKOM GD&T training available. We also offer an Inspect specific GD&T training. This is more about the use of the software, for basics I would recommend the AUKOM training and soon there will be an introduction training for technical drawings. But for GD&T basics I think AUKOM is most suitable. Nanno

For me it happens in regular programming

I am not sure your question. For a Cylinder with (E) - i think for ISO it should be envelope diameter for outside and LP for inner side. On your screenshot you have both tolerances evalated as tangential element. The most logical would be that your tolerance bonus would come from inscribed diameter, since it's the biggest diameter of a pin which can go through ( on your measurement 15,845 ).

I got this message too. For me, it happened when the program launched via Autorun. Since applying the patch, the message has gone away, though I don't know if that's the reason.

Thank you for the link, Martin. Based on the video, it seems that the ISO approach is to use the extracted surface. However, when I create a cylinder using either the envelope principle or the independency principle, the cylinder still has to be within a certain tolerance. Does this apply to both envelope calculation methods? That doesn't really make sense to me. Could you please help me understand this as well? Thank you.

Hi all Does anybody else experience extremely slow saving times when saving a measurement plan? The program reports that it´s "Waiting for PiWeb reporting" and it takes forever to finish.

In general (and for more you have to give information), there are only two possibilities: the parts dont match The maschine "doesnt know where the part is" aka the aligments dont match. For 2. Check the coordinate systems you use, how you manipulate/save and recall them, espescially if you are using loops.

According to AI for ISO you should use Associated element. But i agree there is not much of description what to use and what it's doing. https://www.gdandtbasics.com/iso-vs-asme-position-tolerance/

Danke hat der vom Support mir auch gesagt. Ich hatte es in der Vergangenheit schon gelesen gehabt. Dachte mir aber es sei behoben.

Hi, I’ve recently started using O-Inspect and have a question. I completed the program to inspect my part using the optic/camera, but after changing the part and performing a manual alignment, it seemed to lose position and were no longer correctly oriented to measure the next part. Could someone please help me understand what I might have done wrong?

Hello Mike, thank you for sending the tech guide. However, I couldn't find all the information I was looking for. I wanted to ask if you could provide some additional details, as I couldn't find some of the information in the standard either, and I'm starting to get a bit lost. Specifically, I'm interested in the ISO standard, as I don't work with ASME. If I want to enable the MMR condition, do I need to create a cylindrical hole using either the envelope requirement or the independency principle? Also, should I be using the extracted surface or the associated element? If I use the associated element, does that mean I have to switch from ISO to ASME? Thank you for your response, P.

Piweb plots behave like this when you have interrupted profile segments. I don't do curve recalls like this, but I assume it is behaving the same. Are you able to use the segment tolerances option in the feature? Honestly, the plots for the new GDT line profile characteristics do not seem well-behaved.

Not 100% sure but maybe this option would help.

Thank you Caitlin and Edgar for your responses. I checked for the issues that you both mentioned, however, neither seems to be the case. What I did find is that when I reassigned the stylus systems at my online machine after programming, I neglected to change the Measurement Plan default to an active stylus system. Once I corrected this, the Measurement Plan worked as expected. Ken Quast 3-D CNC

I’m recalling the raw data points from 3 smaller separate curves into 1 big curve and I’m puzzled as to the results and graphic printout on the report. If I analyze and plot the 3 separately, there’s no problem at all. Now if you look at the supplied plot (the gaps in the plot are supposed to be there), there’s a blue line that’s being added. I don’t know what it represents, and as you’ll see it’s being included in the analysis which makes the results useless. What’s even more odd, is that I can re-run it using the same raw data, and get a significantly different blue line and significantly different answers. Anybody know what’s going on and how do I fix this?

I've seen this behavior when I left "Current Selection" active.

Would the .015 tolerance be treated like a dynamic profile?

I am getting this error when trying to start our Zeiss Comet blue light scanner. Any help would be appreciated.

CALYPSO: MasterProbe Part Numbers in SSC MasterProbe MT/VAST Adapter Plate: 600667-9602-000 Stylus: 600342-8023-010

This typically works in that situation - CALYPSO: Excel No Actuals

Hello Gustavo, In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to analyze a cylinder here. The measurable surface area is too small—less than a quarter of the cylinder. The actual measurements of the radius and the position of the axis obtained in this way are, in my opinion, not very meaningful. Since the target dimensions 4.8, R22.5, and 51.3 are TED values, I would only analyze the measurable lateral surface (patch as a surface) and evaluate that. If you still have deviations, please also check the datums again to make sure they were all calculated and selected correctly. Franz

Hello MT, disabled Macros within Excel are mostly the issue when no actual results are displayed. If you go into Options/Trust Center you can activate Macros as a first test. www.portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=1263814 Best Regards Marcel

A CAD converter is required to read CAD models that contain PMI data. A direct interface such as CALYPSO CATIA V5/V6 or CALYPSO CREO (depending on the database) is recommended. The CALYPSO STEP interface is now also possible (from version 2021). However, data information is often lost when reading in via the STEP interface. I only have Calypso 2020 💩 so I can´t use this tool.