All Activity

From ISO 1101:2017 Extracted integral feature: the real, tangible, non-perfect feature as probed by the CMM. Essentially the probed point collection belonging to that feature (a hole, a plane, etc.) Extracted derived feature: the feature computed from one ore more integral features. Examples are real (non-perfect, i.e. curved) median lines (centerlines) and median surfaces (like the median plane of a slot). Optionally, it is possible to specify that the associated (fitted) feature, for instance a Gaussian fitted plane or the perfect centerline of a Gaussian fitted cylinder shall lie inside the tolerance zone. If the Gaussian fitted element (feature) must lie inside the the tolerance zone, rather than the extracted element, this is indicated by adding (G) in the second compartment of the tolerance indicator. See picture below. In many cases, getting the Gaussian associated plane inside a tolerance zone is way easier than the extracted surface itself. So, answering your question, no, the Gaussian (least‑squares) fitting is not the default method for the the feature to be measured. By default, the extracted (real, probed, or calculated from probed points) feature must be measured.

We're using old Visual IPI, I believe it's called differently now as they got bought out. We're paying 5k a year for outdated software so it's got to go. I look for something opposite - as simple as possible - easy to use by someone who doesn't understand drawings very well. I've had DISCUSS, guthrie and 1factory on trial. I'm going to take a look at HighQA and Capvidia. Solidworks inspection looks nice, but I don't think they'll be at IMTS and they don't offer trials.

I'd love to find one that didn't cost an arm and a leg, and had a perpetual license. I got fed up with all of the big names, and spent time developing our own. It was very rough around the edges at first, but after a lot of work we have something that works well for us. Depending on your needs, I might suggest going that route for long term use.

Can you explain how this works? Its peeked my interest.

I had a very similar design "in my head" that incorporated 6 grooves (just extend the current 3 grooves to the opposite side of center) so plate could be rotated 180° for convenience. My design also had the 4 sides ground so block could be turned onto its' sides, also for convenient access to the 3 screws on the back. With ground sides, the block could be held a sin vise or plate, or the adjustable v-block that Richard posted.

Not selling our RDS Contura would have saved a lot of time and money, too. lol

@Jeff Our lab holds the temp at ±0.5° 24/7, so for something like this job, it's not such a big deal. Yes, I know handling causes some expansion but that is minimal. When we're trying to hold microns, the CFX extensions come out. Does Zeiss make CFX adapter plates?

We have a fix assist. It was worth the money. The only issue that we ran into is that the angles were slightly off - especially noticeable at really long distances, so we created new references mark to account for this.

@Roy Espinoza Is this a GOM Scan 1 or an ATOS Q? I ran into issues with the last GOM Scan 1 that I was using where the arm ran out of room to move closer. There was nothing I could do, so I ended up calibrating with the tripod. I believe there is a different mounting bracket for the GOM Scan 1 to the ATOSQ, so make sure you’re using the correct one.

@Keith Forche Thanks. This worked very well for setting the rotation angles however I had to resort to a Starrett Protractor to eyeball the angles of the knuckle joints. Was quite surprised with the results. After qualifying stylus systems and measuring cylinders with shafts, all the angles were within ±0.5°. 🙂

@Martin Jánský The confusion was that I was looking for an answer to my question about my base alignments and I didn't believe you addressed it. I mentioned I had measured the 2 other pins to see if they were 120° apart. Since they were not, it caused me to question the validity of using 1 pin for the planar as I didn't know if it was in the right location. Obviously, the sensor uses all 3 pins to create a repeatable connection. Are the 3 mating connection points on the sensor square with the machine? Seems like I am making a lot of assumptions when I create a base alignment from the adapter plate. I was trying to set and verify the angles using the cmm. I don't want to set an angle, qualify the stylus, measure a cylinder from the shaft on a sphere, to find out what the angle is. Then, repeating it until I get the desired results. That seems like a long set of steps.

This is a template I use for the VAST XTR sensor; it can easily be used for any other sensor. I have another for RDS CAA sensor as well, nothing much different. It uses basic Calypso settings and many other custom settings for file output. Use as you see fit. The "5x" is number of decimal places. Eaton_Inch 5x_Template_v2022_04-17-2024.zip

What are you using now? We have Discus, we may need something more robust that can cover a lot more with planning, check lists, etc.

I'll be there. Got to find a new ballooning software and browse for new stuff.

Nowhere, it's a really bad joke. Took me a while to find a good Greek name.

And I just found where the reference is, buried in some PCM that calculates a bolt circle from all related cylinders determined by bore count. See the highlighted code in the image. 🫣

I am running into this error, and I can't find the reference being referenced. Depending on the part configuration it can have from 3 cylinders (with 3 scans per cylinder) to 13 cylinders (with 3 scans per cylinder). "Circle1_Groove OD" has no visible or searchable reference to any of the "BASE_CIR_xxx" features. Same with "Circle1_Groove ID" (no error) and ""Circle1_Groove OD" was created as a copy of ""Circle1_Groove ID". Parameters shown in the reference image are numeric values from an Excel file for the Para side, there are no references to any of the "BASE_CIR_xxx" features or related characteristics. It's all PCM and Para file controlled. I do not believe the PCM controls the number of cylinders to scan for my tertiary datum, which is "BASE_CIR_DATUM -C- 2" used in the Base Alignment. All features shown in the "Base Cir features" image are not used for this mini plan. The PCM only controls where the program reads code based on the number of cylinders. The last part of code is well after the first section of code. Any assistance is appreciated. if (num_bores==9) and (miniselection=="Rough Bore Characteristics") if (tongue_inspect==1) then setRunID("9 Broach Rough Bore Characteristics") //New 12.12.23 inspPath = getActualInspectionDir()+"\" fileName = "setRunID.txt" deleteFile(inspPath+fileName) addToFile(inspPath+fileName, getRunID()) //End New else setRunID("9 Rough Bore Characteristics") //New 12.12.23 inspPath = getActualInspectionDir()+"\" fileName = "setRunID.txt" deleteFile(inspPath+fileName) addToFile(inspPath+fileName, getRunID()) //End New endif endif Except the I have this code that should bypass the above (for any number of cylinders). //New 08.27.26 Back Face Groove diameters if PN=="00-363107" miniselection=="00-363107 Grooves" setRunID("00-363107 Grooves") Machine="Groove Characteristics" //New 12.12.23 inspPath = getActualInspectionDir()+"\" fileName = "setRunID.txt" deleteFile(inspPath+fileName) addToFile(inspPath+fileName, getRunID()) spd_grv="0.29650" endif

Invest in one of these, I can set any angle quickly and easily. ZX, ZY, XY or any compound angle you can imagine. You may also need a small set of gage blocks.

In Calypso 2025 you can still apply it using Loose but there’s a reason they got rid of it.

Has anyone encountered this error when trying to do a full calibration with the ScanPort? I get this same error when it's on position 12. On the right side it says that it needs to decrease distance, but this is ScanPort automatic calibration, I don't have the option to move the sensor closer. Any guidance is appreciated.

I believe you are correct @Perry Steever2. If the basic dimensions are to planar surfaces, or to other features from planar surfaces, they're asking for TP Ø.020 to the referenced surfaces. Depending on what standard is referenced on the print you'd also get a modifier on those holes too.

If there is nothing else controlling the location of these holes I would assume the design intent is that the datums is the features that the basic values originate from. If there are other dimensions controlling the location I would assume that this is like the lower section of a composite true position. Just these two holes relative each other. I would ask the designer but he is probably retired or dead by now.

If it doesn't come out before December 31st, 2026, I want my 2026 SMA money back . That said, I'd be happy paying for 2026 and 2027 if they changed the icon's back or at least improved them. Especially the ID/OD icon, because who hasn't misinterpreted the small black circle feature icon and crapped their pants when it outside the hole to measure it?

@Tom Oakes, nice job on using the CMM to measure your stylus system angles. You should ditch the aluminum extensions, though. The CFX extensions are a worthy upgrade.

The 1970's are calling. Is this just a TP Ø.020? I dont have any datums, but I do have some basic locations of these hole locations.