All Activity

Hi Ruben, please see also: User defined check Edit expression

It's the same plane used for the alignment. I only have 1 plane and 2 circles in the very quick and basic program. Yeah, I do know that, I just figure if the flatness is at .0017", I should see some movement on the indicator even checking on a granite. I could nearly duplicate and see the .0007" results checking this way however. If I use the plane1 & circle1 alignment, I get .0017". If I use The 3d line1 and plane1, I get .0007". Same plane is being measured and used for the alignment.

Yep, depending on the surface, I use 3mm to 6mm styli. We design and print 3D products from simplest to highly complex. On our case, I can't think of one part that uses a printed surface for mating other than datums to locate the part.

If you are a nerd like me, you learn to use "Modify CAD entities". The way I construct models each has its own independent movement. Just beware if you use Automatic healing, it can create a single model that becomes uncapable of full manipulation. I have created a 3-jaw chuck that is parametric for holding size on either OD or ID of a part and I manipulate the size in Modify CAD entities. I design fixtures and can assemble them in Calypso. I have found it easier to manipulate assembly items rather than importing a fully assembled CAD model.

Wie Juraj schreibt, Maß prüfen -> Standards -> 2-Punkt Durchmesser, dort kannst du Hüllbedingung (E) anklicken

See also

Hi Adam, This information is avaliable as token for all deviation labels: label.get ('result_dimension.measured_value') returns a gom.Vec3d with the actual point coordinates. If an elmeent is needed, it can created with a script. And if it is required to be parameteric, custom elements can be used, see Custom elements — App Development Documentation Hope this helps

Hello Ruben, you can pretty much just start typing. When you start typing typing "A." you get a popup of the possible stuff you can select. Same with thenext sub level. It seems like you can put in standard mathematical operations directly. "-" in this case.

Hi. I use this method : Size...Standards....2 Point Diameter

Hello I want to calculate the difference between two diameters and other basic calculations, but I can’t find any manual explaining how to work with these “formulas”. Is there any way to learn how to perform these simple calculations? I suspect the correct path is: Inspection → Check dimensions → Others → Defined by user… or Defined by user (scalar), but I’m stuck at this point....

Guten Morgen Zusammen, wie kann ich bei den unten stehenden Screenshots die Hüllbedingung in Calypso richtig auswerten? Ich habe es nie gebraucht. Ich weiß, dass das im Kreis stehende E für die Hüllbedingung steht und die Maß und Formtoleranzen verbindet. Aber wie kann ich es in Calypso richtig auswerten? Den Zusatz FC kann ausser acht gelassen werden. Sind für den Kunden nur Kennzeichnungen für Funktionskritische Maße. Ach bevor ich es vergesse ISO und beides sind Bohrungen. Danke für eure Hilfe.

I would say one of the displayed meshes has the display of its mesh structure activated in the report. Judging by the chaotic look it's probably the actual mesh. To get rid of it, edit the 3D view on the report page (click pen icon), click on the model, then open the properties (tab key) and navigate to the Display tab. There you should find the option "mesh structure" (I'm translating this from German in my head - the actual caption may be different). Make sure it's deactivated. The more interesting question is how the mesh structure got activated in the reports of several programs. Are you using a template? Then you should edit that too and turn mesh structure off.

Chris, with XTR it is identical to RDS. You have to qualify the required stylus angle positions as individual stylus numbers of the stylus system. It is not planned to change that behaviour in a future version as most applications are solved by a rotary table system instead of fixed probe or articulating probes like VAST XTR or RDS with VAST XXT.

Awesome, thank you for the info!

If you have a 3d printer available you can print a fixture, nest, clamps etc that will hold your parts. That's how we setup "pallets" for some of our parts. You can always create a measurement plan to inspect your printed fixture if you think it won't be accurate enough.

Are you measuring the exact same area of the plane each time with the same measurement strategy? Are you taking enough points to adequately define the plane? BTW... if you are putting the part on a granite plate and running an indicator across it, you're checking parallelism, not flatness.

Hello, We recently upgraded the PC running Zeiss Inspect 2023 for Windows 11. Since this upgrade, we are having several programs where the report pages are experiencing this "denim"-like texturing. For most of the affected pages, the surface comparison is overlayed to CAD, which is made transparent in properties. I am uncertain if this is related to Win 11 specifically, or if certain graphics settings were not set the same as they were on the previous setup. The issue seems to be isolated to the report pages, as when you 3D View From Report Page, the 3D scene is fine. Any troubleshooting tips would be appreciated. Thanks!

"GD&T Flatness is very straight forward. It is a common symbol that references how flat a surface is regardless of any other datums or features." This has always been my understanding of flatness, very straight forward, and only checked to itself, low to high points. So can someone help me understand why the alignment of the part has an affect on flatness? I wanted to just take a quick look at a surface, so I made a plane and a circle to locate the part. Rotation in space = plane, Z origin = plane, X/Y origin a simple circle in the bore, the part in rotationally symmetric so no Planar rotation. My flatness result is .0017" So I changed the alignment, added an additional circle in the bore, created a 3d line using the 2 circles. Rotation in space = 3d line, Z origin = plane, X/Y origin = 3d line, no planar. Result is .0007", which is much closer to what I can see manually running and indicator over the surface on a granite table. If flatness is only checked to itself, why does my alignment affect the result? Flatness is so simple that I feel really dumb that I can't wrap my head around where the extra .001" is coming from, because clearly I am introducing it. Thanks.

@Chad Watton That's a good point. I just checked all of the probes look to be as they should.

You can use a CAD presentation to report surface profile in Piweb. It won't plot a section view like a line profile because it's not a 2d element. If you use separate section cuts, like curves, to create your surface then you can plot those.

You can also use the largest probe diameter that will accurately measure the surface, as the high points are usually the mating surface and you'll generally get a smoother probed surface to work with.

No error message. Calypso is just unresponsive. All other functions work properly.

I've measured on some metal 3d printed parts and I know exactly the type of surface you are talking about. Joseph pretty much nailed it. There are two types of strategies I choose to work with. You either scan the crap out of it using a very heavy point density. Or you can use the minimum number of points required for the feature. It'd be a good idea to coordinate with engineering to decide exactly where the points should be taken. Kinda like datum locators on castings.

I imagine it is like measuring cast features. If you are scanning with a Ruby probe you may want to consider single touch points, so you do not wear your probe out scanning. This in turn will throw your data out even worst. You might be able to use a different probe material that are more expensive that will be able to scan without premature wear. Silicon nitride probes are what you would be looking for. I haven't tried this personally; in the past I could get away with single touch points. With the ladder option you may have luck with the filter/outlier elimination settings to filter out crap data points. It is hard to filter everything though. Hopefully other users can provide more input.

@Ryan BorgWhen using the XTR, its very possible that a probe is qualified at the wrong rotation. Check you stylus geometry screen to make sure everything is as you would expect it. For example, a probe facing +x could have been qualified in the -Y direction. I've had operators screw this up in the past. My second point: There is absolutely nothing wrong with using circles for setting rotation.