All Activity

You need to setup your machine tab correctly inside of your Planner. Here is a Knowledge Base article on setting this up. https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=520919

Try a projection or silhoutte, create the two lines and the intersection point.

You can always change the evaluation parameters inside of the GD&T characteristic. In addition, always ensure you double check the tolerances for the MMC itself. If you copy/paste characteristics and change the feature via typing the MMC values will be incorrect.

Hello everyone, Im trying measure "L2" but i need to have a point thats not touching the part. Is it possible to create lines outside of two cylinders and an intersection point?

Yes, definitely. If you are evaluating to an ASME print then Position should use Outer Tangential evaluation. Reported size should also use Outer Tangential, unless you are doing a capability study, then LSQ would be appropriate.

Thanks. That was not the Solution. But after switching from .Net 4.7 to 4.8 it worked 🙂

Hallo zusammen hat schon mal jemand einen PCM Befehl geschrieben, bei dem eine .DFD Datei ausgelesen wird und die Inhalte für die Protokollkopfbefüllung genutzt wurden. Am besten wäre noch wenn vor dem Start des Messprogramm die Daten angezeigt werden würden ob sie richtig sind.

@Ben Sovacool are you programming on an offline seat? With SSC or otherwise created "virtual" styli? Then this is normal (yet annoying) behavior. You can select geometry requal. only if a probe already has real calibration data (from a real CMM) stored in the probe database. Why they block this option even in Planner is beyond me. So if you're on Planner, you have to edit that option later on the physical CMM. If you're on the CMM, calibrate the stylus once manually.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, and apologies if this has already been discussed. When using the New GD&T, it appears the MMC bonus is being calculated based on the “suggestion” evaluation used in GD&T, which may not align with the evaluation selected for the diameter size. For example, I generated a quick output where I left the diameter and true position at their default evaluations: LSQ for the diameter and “suggestion” for true position. Based on the above, I calculated the MMC tolerance to be 0.2078. However, the report shows 0.1892. Using CALYPSO’s calculation, the implied diameter would be 3.1592. Listed Tolerance-Base Tolerance=Bonus Bonus+Lower Spec=Actual Size 0.1892-0.03=0.1592 0.1592+3.0=3.1592 After reviewing the diameter evaluation and making an educated guess about what the “suggestion” evaluation was using internally, I applied an Outer Tangential evaluation. This resulted in the 3.1592 size that I was hoping for. It seems the MMC bonus may be tied to the evaluation method used internally by the GD&T characteristic rather than the reported size evaluation itself. I guess if you make perfect form holes/bosses, you've got nothing to worry about 😁

It has been awhile since I've created one but If you are creating a qualification program you would use this I believe. I believe your mode by default will be what your last qualification you had set. You might be able to change if you open the Probing system qualification characteristic.

a bit off track here, but if speed limit says 55mph and I am only going 2mph, am I breaking a law ? j/k I think there is a minimum requirement 😁 Great question Jeff, I have measured a few things I can recall where probe was so slow I could not see it moving (mainly small radii I believe)- with no issues Im aware of ...

The title says it all. I am attempting to set up a re-qualification measurement plan and from our training manual, I am supposed to switch the Mode from Tensor to Geometry Re-qual. Unfortunately, my only available options are Tensor, Dyn.tensor, and 6 Points. Everything else is grayed out.

I'm attempting to set up simulations in Planner. I want to create a re-qual program for the different styli that I currently have. When I go to add a rack, the type of holder I need is not in the drop down menu when prompted to "Please select the desired holder". I need an XXT and the only options I have are MT, MT (old), ProMax, and ZCR.

Are there any online trainings that anyone has found that focuses on this area? I could get good/reasonable results for Center of Ball & Gap measurements, using the initial Curve that I traced, but the Tangents were way off. I had to measure the feature (Gothic Arch) as a Circle and recall those points into a Curve, in order to get good/reasonable results across the board...

Hallo, man kann das polygonisierte Netz mit F4 (Erzeugungsparameter bearbeiten) bearbeiten, um dann die Selektion auf den Messdaten über diese Funktion anzupassen: https://techguide.zeiss.com/de/zeiss-inspect-2026/article/cmd_selection3d_select_inside_cube.html

Thanks a lot for your help. For now, I used "more_points", and it seems that it's working. So by tomorrow i should see the results. Thanks a lot one more time.

After I run my requalification program, I have it go back through (after all the probes have been requalified – want at least 1 probe system change before each one) and verify each stylus to see how close to “0” each one is, and how accurate the diameter is. I’ve found this to be extremely helpful when dealing with tight tolerances. I learned very quickly that I don’t want to trust just the sigma values alone. For many part numbers, I’ll write a separate probe requalification program just for that part number.

Hey Josh, if you think about constructing something yourself ... You could use a similar principle to the cheap bicycle torque in the picture and combine that with your own 3d print idea with the breaking point.

To make sure the command is working, you can record the creation of the element with the intended parameters used in the dialog. For most functions you can print the .__doc__ but for this it needs to be recorded since there is no list of parameters in the .doc print(gom.script.deformation.create_surface_component.__doc__)

@Richard Shomaker Thanks, I will give that a go.

Thanks for the clarification Richard!

For scanning speed/data density for our machines here, I won’t go with a step size that’s less than 0.001mm / 0.00003937”. The drive motors sometimes have trouble if I go much below that.

I am looking for a torque... even these I believe our operators will do the same thing... I think what i am going to do is fabricate on myself and see how it goes...

Sorry for pointing you in the wrong direction. You can put random stuff in for computation instead of the standard or more_points or the delete the whole line it does not produce an error. This is probably just asigning a value (text) to a keyword.

Thanks for your input Nano.