All Activity

I often use plane point, because they are fixed in vector, but reports true XYZ values. Now i don't know what space point does, but i had either space point or another type and when i was manually probing this point it was reporting only in vector correctly, but i needed Z value ( was +Y ), which was reported as nominal.

Hello, We have an arc segment type of part that distorts after the machining operation (the radius becomes smaller). So, the model is a bit different than the physical parts. The print essentially calls for arc length. I've programmed this successfully using some construction features and math functions; however, when I first tried to program it, I tried doing profile points (space points), and that didn't work. I would like to better understand why the space points didn't work. Here is the strategy that I used to create the space points: Leveling: Measured the top of the part for the base plane (rotation about the X axis, rotation about the Y axis, and Z translation) Translation: Measure the radius of the part (obtain the center point of the part) for XY translation Rotation: measured a line on the right side of the part. Then, I intersected this measured line with the radius of the part. Then, I constructed a line from the center of the part to that intersection point. I used this constructed line for rotation. This is the same strategy that I used with my arc length math functions... So why do my space points read far out of tolerance when my arc length measurement great? The form of the part form (circularity) is within tenths. Could the "space point" method possibly be fitting a nominal size radius to the part when it finds that XY center point?

It appears there are some core misunderstandings here. Lets see if I understand and I can help clear it up. Based on what has been communicated, you want an OFFLINE/PLANNER seat to match your ACCURA installation. You do not need to do anything with your ACCURA. It remains exactly as is. You need 1 OFFLINE SEAT w/ PLANNER + CURVE. This will get you a 2025 license for CALYPSO (which is backward compatible to 2024). For license technology change reasons only, you need to ask for the 2023 license as well as this is compatible with 2013-2023. Once you receive your entitlement, install 2023 on your OFFLINE workstation. I believe you are in the UK. I cannot say how this handled there. What I describe above is how it would be handled in the US but there shouldn't be much difference.

ASME Y14.5 mentions datums should be of 'sufficient size', I would say Datum D single hole is insufficient size for a 'primary' 'leveling datum'. I would suggest using the outer face of D as a REF plane and measuring D as a circle, and position to those...only as a REF check, etc.

Yes, the hole in question is to be in-line (concentric) with the datum D hole.

Of course, now I understand. With this information, it's much easier to configure the curve 👍

I presumed something similar to that... AIBIC obviously fully constrains the part. I also presume that what the engineer wants to use as Datum D is being evaluated to AIBIC? I would suggest making a notation on the print that the two holes are to be considered a single feature. This way, you can evaluate the two holes together as a Cylinder; so that if either hole is out of position then the part "fails" The only other way that I can think of that would make sense for this type of part, would be to constrain Datum D to AIBIC (this way AIBIC controls orientation, and Datum D would define the nominal position)... I am unsure of how this would need to be noted/called out to make it "legal"

One thing to note. Correct nominals from a circle can be taken only if that circle element has starting angle "0" and strategy has correct starting angle. Taking out from CAD can result in non zero angle in element, but "0" in strategy start angle. Example: element's starting angle will be 180° so recalled nominals will be rotated by 180° than true points - so you would have to rotate nominals i a curve to get correct ones. If you understand me 🙂

Back face is datum A, large center hole is datum B, and the lower right smaller diameter hole is datum C.

Thanks Martin Jánský for the support, I hadn't tried to obtain the measurement the way you described it to me, it was very practical. I had some issues with the probing vectors; when recalling the points of the elements not measured in the strategy, it wasn't performing the scan correctly with the physical part. I just adjusted the vectors and got my result.

Hi all, I was able to run the program with import gom but suddenly it stopped working. Connected to Host.

Seems like this is a mix up with the 2026 Version of Zeiss Inspect. After Updating to Zeiss Inspect 2026 i had to use the new driver and could update the firmware of the sensor. Would have been nice not to get an update under Zeiss Inspect 2025 that only works with zeiss inspect 2026 🙂

Do you by chance have an SMA to reach our hotline in regards to this issue? These errors can be quite tricky to fix sometimes.

Hi, there is no dedicated function for this. There is one iterative approach using a projected curve Construct Projected Curve: create curve on CAD project curve on mesh (shortest distance) project this curve back to CAD (shortest distance) project curve on mesh (shortest distance) ... It is also possible to create a surface comparison/surface distance between CAD and this mesh area. Then use a defect element to filter point with positive deviation (points above CAD) ZEISS Quality Tech Guide And as @Martin Jánský wrote, intersection points between curve and mesh can be created directly. Many Curves or Section on the CAD perpendicular to the mesh/CAD intersection could be used to create intersection points, then use these points for a curve. Nanno

I believe (different department so I can't speak with certainty) that the Webshop is under construction for some improvements, there used to be a (hard to notice) message about it, although I no longer see that on the page. You can utilize the Webshop chat to connect with an Aftermarket team member who can help with any items you may be interested in that are currently not visible on the Webshop.

The usual logic in Zeiss Inspect is to use the currently active main alignment (the one in the upper right of the main window). If you want to use a datum system instead, you can create a new alignment by coordinate systems and select the datum system. This sets the datum system as the main alignment.

Hallo Thomas, wie macht ihr es denn aktuell bei den Zeiss? Wir haben unsere Programme ausschließlich im Netzwerk, die Maschinen greifen beide darauf zu, ebenso wie ich offline. Solange du die Einstellung für Istwerte (Einstellungen->Arbeitsumgebung->Pfade) nicht auf "Prüfplanverzeichnis" gestellt hast, sondern stattdessen einen lokalen Pfad(C\xxx) angibst, gibt es keine Probleme, auch wenn beide Maschinen gleichzeitig auf ein Programm zugreifen. Nur offline musst du halt aufpassen, dass das Programm gerade auf keiner der Maschinen läuft. Das habe ich so geregelt, dass ich mir ein Verzeichnis namens "Programme im Aufbau" erstellt habe, in welches ich das zu bearbeitende Programm rein kopiere.

Ich würde ganz grundsätzlich niemals eine Datei im Verzeichnis eines gerade laufenden Programmes verändern. Das kann mit Glück heute funktionieren, aber ob und wie Calypso in künftigen Releases mit seinen Dateien umgeht, kann keiner wissen. Also wenn kopieren, dann würde ich immer vorher sicherstellen, daß das aktuell kopierte Programm gerade nicht läuft.

Hallo, ich betreue 2 gleiche Zeiss in verschiedenen Messräumen auf denen zum Teil die gleichen Programme laufen. Jetzt würde ich gerne bei den Zeiss genauso machen wie ich es auch auf Hommel und Jenoptik Geräten mache. Und zwar hab ich da auf einem Netzlaufwerk aktuelle Programme, auf die ich auch ohne Umweg vom Büro aus zugreifen kann. Diese Programme werden dann täglich einmal per Robocopy Skript vom Netzlaufwerk zum lokalen inspection Ordner auf den beiden Maschinen abgeholt. Jetzt funktionieren die Zeiss Calypso Programme etwas anders als bei anderen Messmaschinen, da es sehr viele Dateien hat bei denen viele beschrieben werden auch ohne dass man auf speichern klickt. Ich möchte vermeiden, dass das robocopy skript irgendeine Datei überschreibt, die Calypso gerade nutzt, oder in die Calypso zb. Protokollkopf-Felder schreibt. Mein erster Versuch war jetzt robocopy zu sagen dass es nur Dateien überschreiben soll die Älter sind als die vom Netzlaufwerk. Aber Calypso schreibt in die inspection und inspset Datei rein, die aber schon überschrieben werden sollte. Also ist jetzt mein Gedanke Robocopy zu sagen es soll alles überschreiben bis auf: (Bei diesen hab ich gesehen, dass Calypso während des Ablaufs rein schreibt. inspection und inspset glaub ich werden nur sporadisch geschrieben) - filetrc.log - protocols.aai - protocols.log - protocols_pre.log - protheadpara - protocol - startfile Was ich ebenfalls nicht vom Netzlaufwerk hole sind *.zmp Dateien und den Temp Ordner Weiß nicht ob das so praktikabel ist? Hat das schon mal jemand versucht oder arbeitet jemand so? Möchte nicht das es zu Fehlern kommt wenn Robocopy ausführt und ein gerade laufendes Programm zerschießt. Vielen Dank im Voraus

You gave me hope for a second, but unfortunately my files are encoded with UTF-8 😞

ACCURA from 2023. I know that there is a big difference what it can be done and what Zeiss is telling me.

I "solved" the problem for the moment by downgrading the aquisition driver to version 14.1.6.

I renamed my characteristics to add an index number in front of them. Ex. changing "Pin CL to G1" to "#119 Pin CL to G1". I added the #xxx to all the characteristics but when I run the trend or table protocol reports the old name still shows up with the original data, with the renamed one as a new row. Many have worked like the 619 but is there a way to merge the data in the ones that separated? Thanks.

To accomplish this to the original print, you would need to evaluate datum feature D as a cylinder, which I doubt is possible based on the image. Is the hole in question concentric to datum D? I personally would want, at the minimum, a corrected "Red-Line" drawing showing exactly what datums to use. Either from your engineers or the customer. It's a scary world when your inspection program gets audited and it's easy to prove it wasn't designed with the print intent. Much more so when you have zero documents to support you.

Now in 2026, I am looking for reference spheres, but they are no longer available. I was also looking at the RT check. It too is no longer available. Have these items been removed? They were there a few months ago.