All Activity

Hi Canset, could you reach out to support with reference to this thread? Nanno

Got in this morning to an email from Zeiss. They now have a technician available that meets our machine calibration due date 🤔 I'll definitely be putting in yearly reminders to get quotes 8 months in advance. I've never had a problem with Zeiss service, before. Regarding technicians: Years ago, I used to see the same technicians, annually. I appreciated that consistance. For at least the last 5 years, I have seen a new face almost every time. I'm sure that they have been trying to do more with less.

Moin Stefan, kannst Du einen Kegelmessen an der stelle? Wen ja mit dem Element Kegelzusatz, findest Du unter "Verknüpfen"

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I see the same issue on another workstation that has only an NVIDIA RTX GPU, with no iGPU available. The popup still appears intermittently there as well. So it seems that, at least in my case, the problem may not be related to Windows selecting the wrong GPU. I would need some more detailed information from ZEISS about how INSPECT handles GPU initialization and hardware rendering, especially in multi-instance scenarios, and whether there is a supported way to force hardware rendering consistently or assign specific GPU resources to each instance.

So 4° is a plane? Then make theoretical plane at center and perpendicular to 4° plane - their intersection will create a line. Then make another theoretical plane at half of 3.8 and make another intersection with this line to get a point.

It is a cylinder with a sloped surface on one side. I tried to create a theoretical plane, but I think I’m doing something wrong and could use some help.

Is it diameter or box? You can make theoretical plane or cylinder and make intersection - use 3.8 as nominal and you will get correct reading for 9.6

Ich benötige Hilfe bei der Umsetzung einer Lagen- bzw. Schnittpunktmessung an einer schrägen Fläche. Das Breitenmaß von 3,8 mm muss dabei fest definiert sein. Anschließend möchte ich ermitteln, an welcher Längenposition sich dieses Maß befindet.

I like the idea of simulation mini-games because they give players a chance to experiment with mechanics rather than simply follow the usual gameplay loop. That testing mindset is also useful in larger games, where upcoming features often need real player feedback before release. For example, Free Fire’s beta testing environment lets selected players try new characters, weapons, maps, and game modes while reporting bugs and sharing feedback. I recently came across a detailed overview of the latest FF Beta testing version. It’s an interesting example of how player testing can help refine new gaming features before they reach everyone.

@ Norbert Bendl🤣 ja die „Guten Alten UMESS-Zeiten“. Manchmal wüsche ich die zurück. Das war noch Messen, und nicht nur Bildchen und Knöpfchen drücken🤓 Da waren halt schlaue Kaufmänner dran, die eine neue Geldquelle gesehen haben.🙊

Das Bild bringt bei mir 25 Jahre alte Erinnerungen zurück Diese Oberfläche und das Konzept mit Stationen ähnelt extrem dem Autorun von UMESS-UX. Das hatte auch diese komfortable Warteschlange, wo man einfach mehrere Stationen gleichzeitig starten konnte, die dann nacheinander abgearbeitet wurden. Diese Funktion vermisse ich bis heute in Calypso Autorun und ihr Fehlen hat uns eine Menge Effizienz gekostet. Das ist auch der Grund, warum ich in MyVoice das Anlegen layerübergreifender Sequenzen angeregt habe. Das wäre zumindest eine Sparversion einer richtigen Warteschlange. Aber ich glaube, das erlebe ich vor der Rente nicht mehr 😉

I am lost on what each scan contains, but in general - import "top" into "middle" and "bottom" into "middle" You can show ref. points and with ctrl you should be able to select, then click to add ( should be that button just under list of ref. points on left side ) But this is not Inspect, so i don't know if this will work at your SW

Link to a couple of older posts with some more details, this seems to have been an issue for a while:

Yeah, the last few years we had been scheduling out calibrations about 6 months in advance after we got in a scheduling bind when we reached out our usual three months in advance and they gave us a five month lead time that would put our CMMs out of calibration for a couple months. Company ownership was very displeased. Additionally, we have two machines and we used to get both done once a year during the same visit from the Zeiss calibration tech, it seemed to work well and helped reduce calibration costs. Then a few years ago Zeiss started charging double the travel time even though it was two machines done in the same visit that required an extra day, maybe two on site. We didn't mind paying the cost of those extra couple of days but double dipping on the the travel expenses was kind of a slap in the face. In spite of this we wanted to stick with the original manufacturer of the machines for calibration services so we switched to calibrating our machines every other year, alternating machines, so a tech was in annually to calibrate one machine one year and the next year the other. There was now a two year calibration cycle on our CMM's but we felt like the cost/risk benefit was within our tolerance. Unfortunately it also seems like the quality of both communication and the calibration techs has gone down the past couple of years as well, at least those they send to our area. We had an issue of a tech really not seeming to know what he was doing - always on the phone working through the calibration process, taking significantly longer, and when he was done had screwed something up that required a more experienced tech to then make the trip to fix it. With all of this in mind company ownership opted to get a third party CMM calibration service in this year. It went smoothly and the tech was very knowledgeable and the cost was significantly cheaper. I had significant reservations about moving away from Zeiss for our calibration services but the cost was becoming prohibitive for our smaller shop and the risk of a bad calibration tech showing up was becoming a real possibility. Thankfully this outside tech was able to calibrate the CMM without any problems and was pleasant to work with but if there is a larger issue that requires significant adjustments or hardware fixes we'll still plan to rely on Zeiss. I would be curious if others have had similar experiences. I have worked with many Zeiss techs over the years and many were great but the past couple of years were rough.

Well, not so common, I suppose. We have been receiving our quotes with plenty of time to schedule, in the past... and I've been scheduling calibrations through Zeiss for the last 10+ years, and it has never been an issue.

@Keith Forche I thought this was common knowledge? Zeiss told us to schedule AT LEAST 6 months out for the CMM, better if we could do 9 months. I set a reminder on the calendar. They just need a PO at scheduling time as a placeholder.

Fun story.. We received our quote for calibration, and had the PO issued within 2 weeks. I just got an email stating that the technician isn't scheduled to be on site until a month (4 weeks) PAST the CMM calibration due date. There was NO chance of getting the CMM scheduled on time. Not even if we jumped through 20 hoops to get a PO out the same day... it's basic math. Better email your reps 6 months in advance, if you want a chance of having your equipment scheduled on time...

simple enough:) Thanks

Based on your screenshots, I think you've hit a limitation of the Transform by Common Reference Points workflow in ATOS Professional V8. Once Scan 1 is transformed into Scan 2, V8 appears to expect any additional scans to use that same reference point constellation. Since your Bottom and Top scans don't share common reference points, I'd try importing all three scans into a fresh project before performing any transformations. Otherwise, you may need to use the Middle scan as a bridge or use a geometric alignment for the final merge. I'm not sure whether V8 supports chaining multiple independent reference point transformations, so I'd be interested to hear if anyone has successfully done this in V8.

Just select different axis direction in second alignment.

Occasionally I need to remove a planar rotation feature to measure a half finished turned part whiteout the feature that will be used later to clock the part, and once I do that the trihedron is flipped 180 degrees and the clearances seem to get screwed up, the stylus runs into the part in tight corners, ( no damage, it's just annoying ) and I go thru the whole program to fix the clearance moves, that were otherwise good. Why does this happen? and what can I do to avoid it?

Thanks for your responses and helps. Do you know how can I request that? I couldnt find it in the ZEISS Quality Suite.

@Chad Watton For each of your project files perhaps you could create the solid files from the volume, then use initial alignment>prealignment. Once aligned to the segment of the CAD you need (top, middle, bottom), export the STL in this alignment. New project file, bring in all 3 of your newly aligned STL files. Select all STL files, export as one surface.

For reference, I'm going to Acquisition>Measurement Series>Transform by common reference points.

Okay, this was my idea at first; But I can't figure out how to create a second reference point alignment. Usually I can get these in two scans. So I don't have much practice combining when I use 3 scans.