All Activity

Can the header field range be changed? I'm trying to get calypso to report to a pre-existing company measurement report and I need the header field to be A1:R15.

I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing. I just tried using the Resources/Utilities/Probing System Qualification inside of a program to qualify the master probe/reference sphere and it definitely didn't update the reference sphere location. The probe went about 20" in -X immediately after running the qualification. I'm wondering if people are referring to using the caliper icon as being the "automatic" option. Or am I missing something?

Hello Samethsom, which CALYPSO Version are you running exactly? I found a BUG with the same exception, but it should be fixed with >8.0.1204. Best Regards Marcel

Hello, I am trying to create my own excel template for measurement reports, and I am having a few problems. I copied the company measurement report template into the calypso template (characteristic.xlsm) Calypso will export data to my template, but only in columns A-H. Columns to the right of column H will not have any data reported even if they have a header. Is there a way to widen the range area that calypso will search for a header in? Any help is appreciated.

Hi all. Was wondering if anyone can help with this error? I constantly get it when I'm either programming or trying to run the characteristics side to generate a report. Much appreciated!

Hello everyone, I am experiencing a license activation issue with ZEISS CORRELATE 2026 and would appreciate any advice or assistance. I attempted to activate the 30-day trial through ZEISS Quality Suite. The automatic activation process proceeded normally through the initial steps, but it froze at the final activation step. After waiting, I closed the application. Since then, my ZEISS account has shown the trial as already activated or used. However, when I try to launch ZEISS CORRELATE 2026, I receive the message "No license available." I also checked the License Overview section in ZEISS Quality Suite, but it is completely empty. I contacted ZEISS Support and received instructions for manual activation along with a license code. Unfortunately, entering this code results in an "Unexpected error" message. So far, I have tried: Restarting Windows and ZEISS Quality Suite. Completely uninstalling and reinstalling the software. Repeating the activation process. Attempting manual activation using the code provided by ZEISS Support. Unfortunately, none of these attempts resolved the issue. I suspect that the automatic activation was interrupted and that the license may have been registered on the server without being properly activated on my computer. Has anyone experienced a similar issue? Is there a way to reset or repair the incomplete trial activation, or clear the failed activation state without affecting other licenses? I urgently need ZEISS CORRELATE for Digital Image Correlation (DIC) analysis as part of my doctoral research. Any suggestions or guidance from ZEISS experts or other users would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help.

I'll attach some screenshots but first, a few general pieces of advice. 1. Turn on Bubble Help if you haven't already. That is seriously something you want to do. It's on the top toolbar under "?" → Bubble Help. That will give you a tooltip when you mouse over anything. 2. Use the built-in help system. If you're ever wondering what something will do, you can hit F1 on any page and it will take you to the internal help database with information about the specific window you're looking at. It is INCREDIBLY helpful, although you might have to click around once in a while to find exactly what you're looking for. 3. Run the machine slowly when making changes. When you're changing things, run the machine slowly and watch it. If you need it to stop, slow the speedometer down to zero, hit the red traffic light button, then make your changes and try again. Apologies if you're already familiar with all of that, but I figured it was worth mentioning. Ok some instructions Find the feature that measures fine before the crash. With the probe in a safe location right click on the feature and hit measure now. This will move your probe to the correct location and angle. After that is done double click on the feature. Click strategy. Manually move the probe to a location that would make it safe for the rotation of the next feature. Hit that highlighted button of the left that has CMM position with the last line in the strategy selected. The order you see there is the order it will run in so if your move is before the strategy, it will move measure and then crash. You can also add a clearance move after that if its helpful. Highlighted in blue. You might have to add a few more move points if it needs to move multiple times. I have a few parts where something is getting checked internally and it needs multiple move points in order to access and then backout. The window when you're done will usually look something like this. Anyway, if anyone else wants to chip in feel free to add something. I took all my classes when I was using vast and at the time I figured why would I need to listen or take notes on the indexing stuff.

That is very good advice, I have found that once as well causing a bunch of issues.

all i am trying to do is make the probe raise up in the z rotate then continue to the next feature rather than raise in the z shuttle to the next feature then rotate.

I have wondered over the years why Calypso doesn't have detection when the RDS or an XTR articulates near the +X or -X uprights. When you use Planner (Simulation), you can show the max volume which means each CMM has the ability to adjust to a working volume to calculate an articulation coordinate based on the length of a stylus.

Dear All Our We team would like to inquire about a discrepancy in the nominal angle values displayed in ZEISS CALYPSO between the True Position and Features windows for Feature A2. The values displayed are as follows: True Position – Nominal Position (Angle): -21.000° Features – Nominal Angle: 339.000° Actual Angle: 339.225° We understand that -21.000° and 339.000° may represent the same angular orientation, as they differ by 360°. However, we would like to confirm whether this is the expected behavior in ZEISS CALYPSO. Could you please clarify the following points? Why does the True Position window display the nominal angle as -21.000°, while the Features window displays it as 339.000°? How do the Positive Orientation and Negative Orientation settings affect the angle definition and measurement calculation? Which angle setting should be used to ensure the True Position evaluation is correct according to the engineering drawing? Could this difference in angle representation affect the True Position calculation or measurement results?

If Richards approach doesnt help, you can try to restart your controller. If that doesnt help you can try to take out the sensor of the "dovetail guide" if you have a MASS compatible CMM. Unfortunately this message often means that the Sensor is damaged. Best Regards Marcel

----Englisch version below--- Guten Tag zusammen, gibt es eine Möglichkeit, eine TOP-Fehler-Auswertung über mehrere Messungen und Bauteile zu erstellen? Von Vitronic erhalte ich über CSV die Ergebnisse der Inline-Schweißnahtüberwachung. Für jede Schweißnaht steht unter anderem die Bewertung „Schweißnaht Gesamt“ = IO/NIO zur Verfügung. Ich möchte nun nicht nur einzelne Bauteile betrachten, sondern beispielsweise einen Zeitraum von zwei Wochen auswählen und daraus ermitteln: Welche Schweißnähte wurden am häufigsten mit NIO bewertet? Wie häufig trat der jeweilige Fehler im ausgewählten Zeitraum auf? Darstellung als Tabelle, absteigend nach Fehlerhäufigkeit sortiert. Ziel ist eine kompakte TOP-Fehler-Liste über alle Bauteile, sodass die aktuellen Problemschweißnähte direkt ersichtlich sind und nicht täglich mehrere Einzelprotokolle durchsucht werden müssen. Wisst ihr, ob bzw. wie sich eine solche Auswertung realisieren lässt? Viele Grüße Martin ----------------------------------------------- Hello everyone, is there a way to create a TOP error analysis across multiple measurements and parts? I receive the results from the Vitronic inline weld inspection via CSV. For each weld, the data includes the overall assessment “Weld Overall” = OK/NOK. Instead of analyzing individual parts only, I would like to select a specific period, for example the last two weeks, and determine: Which welds were rated NOK most frequently? How often did each error occur within the selected period? Can the results be displayed in a table, sorted by error frequency in descending order? The goal is to have a compact TOP error list across all parts, allowing us to immediately identify the welds currently causing the most issues without having to review multiple individual reports every day. Does anyone know whether this type of analysis is possible and, if so, how it can be implemented? Best regards, Martin

Wir hatten bevor ich die Contura übernommen habe einen Freien nicht gerade begabten Programmierer. Spät kam raus, dass er mit RDS sich gar nicht auskennt. Dort gab es mal eine Kollision wo sich der Sensor gelöst hat. Er wurde daraufhin entlassen und ich kam ins Spiel. Ist aber 4 Jahre her und seither hat sich der Sensor nie wieder gelöst.

Guten Morgen Sven, es kommt ab und zu (wenn auch selten) vor das sich die schwarze Rändelmutter löst, bzw. nicht 100% fest ist. Dies kann durch Kollisionen oder auch Vibrationen geschehen. Es fällt dann meistens auf wenn die Messergebnisse sichtlich schlechter werden. Ich würde Sie festziehen und in 1-2 Wochen nochmals gegenprüfen ob sie sich nochmals gelöst hat, wenn ja müsste man schauen ob die Mutter evtl. beschädigt ist. Wir haben das Thema ab und zu im Support ist aber eher ein seltenes Thema, fragen wir aber als Standard mit ab wenn das Fehlerbild in die Richtung geht wie du es beschrieben hast. Grüße Marcel

Seems you can have missing safety plane - which should be covered in newer versions of Calypso ( should not be empty ). If you need to move probe in one feature ( skipping part of fixture/part ) then go to strategy and place either new safety plane or non-scanning points in space.

So mainly those deviations can relate to vectors of touch. You base alignment will not be perfect so in every run you can touch the part in another locations, so there is first variable - another spot - another touch vector. Then you should use in formula "GetNominal" instead of "GetActual" - this can lead also to this deviation ( i did conversion and your difference is 0,1mm in Z axis )

Well, a few things to note: no sketch of a part no description how big is deviation in part location/rotation no info about what licences you have ( curve, FF, ... ) What you can do in Calypso is manual mode to force user to obtain a few features. You can use start alignment, RPS, loops of base alignment, is some stage you can also use curves. We have one part, which has one groove to clock a part. I did a fixture, where you clock that part by putting a rod into this groove for fixturing - after that this rod is removed and you can run program. Also you can pick someone on forum, which you want to trust and PM with more sensitive data to this problem.

Guten Morgen Zusammen, gestern als ich zur Arbeit gekommen bin, hatte ich eine Mail von der Spätschicht. Sie hatten Probleme, dass sich die Messungen von einem zum nächsten Teil extrem verschlechterten. Sie haben es erneut gemessen und es war noch schlechter. Zum Schluss haben sie noch ein ganz anderes Teil vermessen und es war genau so. Da es mehrere Sonden betraf gatte ich gleich die Maschine im verdacht. Bei genauerer Prüfung stellte ich fest, dass sich der XXT-Sensor am RDS-Kopf gelöst hat. Ich hatte gleich eine Kollision im verdacht. Allerdings hat der Ereignismonitor nichts der gleichen Aufgezeichnet. Hatte einer dieses Problem schon einmal oder ist dies bekannt? Grüße aus dem Schwarzwald

I once had a problem where the XXT sensor had come slightly loose from the RDS head. Check that the black union nut connecting the RDS to the XXT is securely tightened.

Unfortunately, there is nothing repeatable about the setup. It is basically put in by eyeball. One attempt at the setup has it balanced on three 123blocks. Another attempt uses a clamp and an adjustable riser. There just isn't a great way to control it. But that still wouldn't solve the problem.

Your form is pretty tight which likely precludes a wobbly reference sphere or damaged reference sphere, reference probe, or probe. If you are having the issue with multiple probes then I have to wonder if the problem isn't in the probe holder. Given that the deviation in location is primarily in Z, that would indicate that the calibration could be oot in Z. As I type this I think I would expect the measured diameter would be off by about 0.005" to account for the issue. Unfortunately, I am new to automated CMMs and Calypso so I don't have a lot of insight. I am following the topic to see if I can learn something from this.

Hi James, I'm not completely sure if I understand what particular part of the process is causing the crash but if you need the probe to move before it rotates to the for the next feature you can use CMM position points in the strategy of the last feature before the crash to move it to a safe position. Those you can key in manually or simply move your probe (rotated to the correct angle) to the location and hit the button. Under strategy it should be the first button on the left. Otherwise, if the travel is an issue you can block an edge of the clearance cube to prevent it from traveling along that edge. Youll find that option under plan -> Navigation -> Block edges. Under strategy you can also use clearance moves after the measuring strategy to get the probe out and away. Ex if it's backing out to an X- clearance plane and that's too low or too close to the X- side of the machine. You can say X- clearance, Z+ Clearance, X+ clearance. I'm fairly new to XXT and needing to do that so there are probably other cleaner options available as well. Perhaps one of the other users will have a better suggestion.

can anyone tell me how to make my probe come out of a feature raise up then rotate then shuttle to the next feature rather than shuttling and trying to rotate next to the mast and knocking my probe off?

We have a feature that we want to measure with a symmetry point to make sure it is well centered on a fairly thin wall when measuring a line on that edge. So there are two symmetry points, one for each point in the feature. The feature is connected to its own alignment, which is just a 90° rotation about the X-axis so that what was +Z becomes +Y. The symmetry point is in the base alignment. We also wanted to do a test to see if the symmetry point was significant and this is where we saw some weird stuff. The edge we are measuring is at 45° to the Y axis and perpendicular to the Z axis when in the base alignment. We created the measurement and put a formula in for the measured point's Y location (remember the feature is in its own alignment). the formula reads something like: GetActual("symmetry point 1").z This formula is in the definition of the point inside the measurement strategy and not on the nominal of the feature itself. Then we duplicated the feature and put the same formula in except we put a 0.015" offset so it reads: GetActual("symmetry point 1").z - 0.015 It looks pretty good so far. It says that the measurement point in the one is 0.015" lower than the other prior to any measurements being taken. Then we test this six separate times, export all the nominals and measured points to text files, import them all into a common excel sheet and start to analyze the results. There are a few troubling observations. 1) the difference in the nominals of each point is not exactly 0.015". It ranges from around 0.012 to 0.016, but is not exactly 0.015. Be aware that both points are using the same symmetry point. 2) all nominal and measured Z-values match. Between the six tests there are 12 points for the regular and 12 points with the offset. The Z-value for each point was unique, but the nominal and measured values for the point were a perfect match. Why would either 1 or 2 happen? Before you ask, I cannot share any pictures or files.