All Activity

It's data management request, I am not sure why they need as that either.

Danke, hatte da noch nie rein geschaut da das immer geklappt hatte. Wieder was neues gelernt.

Hi, The IT department refused to tell me specifically what setting, or settings, stopped PiWeb from printing reports due to potential risks to our security. Kinda disappointing because now that the other OMM's were upgraded to 8.0, they all have the same issue, and IT will not be available to resolve it until early April.

@Nanno Muehl Thank you very much, I just updated 2026.0 to 2026.1 so config file was the same, changed that parameter and performance are back to 2025.4 level. I can finally switch everything to 2026 and keep full speed of my workflow. Good job on fixing that problem at the first SP release

Yes I tried that. The only way I can fix the repeating issue is to toggle from the scan button to home and back. Then it works.

Hi Alejandro, it is not possible to export CAD files in a CAD format. They can be exported as .STL to use them in other software. Nanno

Hi All, Does anyone have an offline dongle Calypso 2023 with curves for sale ? We have contacted Zeiss, but they do not want to sell any older than 2025

The scan was very slow so it should not be porous

First off, I'm a newb on my GOM and Zeiss inspect(I'm actually using ATOS Pro v8). I'm looking for best practices for exporting XYZ points when you section a mesh. I was successful in exporting my points but I want to feel out what other people are doing. Here is my current workflow: 1. scanned the part 2. created a fitting plane to use as my reference plane 3. Used "construct single section" to create my line profile 4. Then I just used Export>ASCII file This worked but I noticed something weird. I sectioned my surface 4mm above the reference plane. But my Z value on the ASCII is at -3.27mm. The XY plot for the blade I exported looks right, so I know it exported the section I wanted. But I can't figure out why my ASCII Z values aren't closer to 4mm. To complicate it, I created a local alignment on top of the blade, I think my ASCII file might be aligned to that, but I'm not sure. To summarize: An I using the best workflow to export XYZ points from a mesh with no nominal CAD? How do I know which alignment my ASCII file is using?

In 2025 once a point was measured it was visualized with full splat size and fixed normal. In 2026 the visualization of scanned data changed slightly; splats adapt over time. The more a often point is observed the bigger the representing splat gets. This should give an indication where data is measured sufficiently to get a good mesh without holes. So if you just do a single quick scan on a surface you'll get porous visualization.

Then why does everything work, Calypso starts up, makes measurements, and only after the measurement is completed, when the report should be generated, an error pops up!?

Hallo Friedbert, das geht in den Einstellungen für Standardvorlagen:

Hi again, it was fixed with 2026 Service Pack 1. Please check the config file: C:\Users\*USER*\AppData\Roaming\GOM\2026\gomsoftware.cfg The relevant settings are: Global_ControlMaxAllowedParallelism = 12 EnableHyperCore = 0 EnableHyperCore should be set to 1, and the other setting to the maximum number of logical cores of your system. The setting in the preferences of Inspect 2025 will be carried over to the 2026 config, when 2026 is reinstalled. Alternatively edit the settings in the config file. Please let me know if this worked Nanno

Thank you for the screenshots. Nothing that can be changed or influenced by us as an operator. Please send the logging.zip to your local ZEISS support team as they have to create a ticket for investigation on this. Also give them the information of your system. Windows 10 or 11? GEAR PRO 2023, but which exact version? 7.0.???? Thank you again.

Just blame Microsoft. 🤣

Hab doch noch eine Frage. Vor dem Update war das beim Erzeugen einer Reportseite nie, bzw ganz selten mal der Fall, daß diese Keyword-Meldung kam. Jetzt muß ich bei jedem neuen Projekt erst in "Bearbeiten-Keywords" gehen damit die Seite korrekt angezeigt wird. Kann ich das nicht schon beim erzeugen eines neuen Projekts gleich richtig laden ?

I restarted Calypso 20000 times during testing with no influence on the result. After restarting the PC to install the new sp its now working as intended

Hi Andrea, I will have a look internally and come back to you. If it's a different issue we probably need sample data and handle it in a support case. Nanno

Maybe deactivate the movement check in the acquisition parameters and have a look at the measurement will help to understand why that check did not work. Usually the movement of reference points during the measurement is detected, so I guess something interferes with that check.

Hallo, danke das war die Ursache (nach dem Update). Jetzt geht´s wieder. Hatte da noch nie rein geschaut da es immer funktioniert hat.

I guess im going to install the latest sp and see if it still behaves like that

I had a similar problem. It was related to the license. In my case, it turned out to be a faulty cable connected to the USB port for the dongle.

Hi, after i was informed that 2026 release had indeed a flaw regarding the utilization of high core count CPU (i have 32C-64T) and the software was using maximum 16 Threads even if in option the logical core were set to 64. After updating to SP1 I observe the exact same behavior, so nothing changed apparently. I tried retesting 2025 release with latest SP installed and it uses all cores (in option i have the flaw on for use all cpu resources). I took a 18GB files of acquisitions and tried timing the 2 releases: 2026 did it in 4 minutes and 16 seconds while 2025 in 1 minute and 57 seconds. For us speed of polygonalization is quite important since we need the meshes right after the acquisition. If you need any king of specific information of log, setting, machine detail etc I'm welcome to give them to you to fix this problem with 2026 release.

PiWeb Reporting Plus 2020 has also stopped launching from the desktop shortcut!

I used the format from your original post (no "" around offsetCoordinates) and still got -0.1d for the 3rd value (-100.0). I used display() for output.