All Activity

Text in Englisch siehe unten. Hallo, mit dem Dialogeditor des Skript-Editor kann man interaktiv Dialoge aufbauen. Seit der Änderung des GUI mit der Veröffentlichung von Inspect 2026 ist zwischen der letzten Zeile eines Dialogs und den Dialogbuttons ein recht großer Abstand (siehe Bild). Das Layout eines Dialogs sieht bei dessen Anzeige dann meiner Meinung nach ein wenig unprofessionell aus. Ist dieses Layout ein Bug oder ein Feature von Inspect 2026? Hello, with the dialogue editor of the script editor you can interactively build dialogues. Since the change of the GUI with the release of Inspect 2026, there is quite a large gap between the last line of a dialog and the dialog buttons (see image). In my opinion, the layout of a dialog looks a bit unprofessional when it is displayed. Is this layout a bug or a feature of Inspect 2026?

Any news about the release? Calypso 2025 was launched on May 5, 2025.

The image below would be a wedge probably, "use nominal angle" covers the case of datum elements with an angle between them: ZEISS Quality Tech Guide

Isn't function Use nominal angle supposed to automagically solve this case?

Hi Philippe, if a symmetry plane is defined as a datum, it is created like this (ZEISS Quality Tech Guide) : Middle plane of an inner element Middle plane of a maximum inscribed plane pair The inner planes get inscribed iterative according to the ISO standard. This computation method is not possible to recreate using standard elements. When the standard in the datum system is set to 'geometry', the datum plane and the symmetry plane should be at the same position. You could verify by checking the symmetry plane for position using the datum system with the positional check also set to 'geometry'. Nanno

this part is 130mm long, the cross section is 30x20, therefore C cannot be the primary datum according to ISO I can define a datum between 2 drafted surfaces, it is a wedge. is there any way to refine this triangle mesh?

Hello today, Unfortunately I can`t share full data, but I will try to explain this issue. On drawing I have undercut max0,09 and max edge finish 0,02 In GearPro I`m evaluating it as root relief, my interpretation from drawing. Because I have this: In my opinion, this is how it should be! In lower right corner our production example, everybody says this is ok, because max edge finish (0,02) allow it. Disagree with it! So this is not a max edge finish! Just incorrectly made undercut (root relief), not fully machined! The question is, I`m I right?

Hello, Since the issue occurs only for a specific Windows user account and cannot be reproduced with another user on the same machine, additional diagnostics will be required to determine the root cause. At this point, the information provided in the forum is unfortunately not sufficient for a reliable analysis. We will most likely need to review the PiWeb log files and possibly perform a remote support session to investigate the affected user profile and authentication settings in more detail. Please contact your local ZEISS support hotline and request a support ticket. Once the ticket has been created, our support team will guide you through the collection of the required diagnostic information and continue the investigation. Please reference this forum post when creating the ticket. Best regards, ZEISS PiWeb Support

Do you really need datums in this order? I would start with C ( which is not shown ) and then A and B. I think problem can be that planes used in A and B are angled and Inspect can interpret model edges wrongly ( you see nice faces, but Inspect is secretly transforming this model into triangle mesh ) I would use a plane from 4 corners close to A1B1, ... and make section on those A1,2 and B1,2 - then use symmetry from those lines. You get from B only direction - it's not compensating tilt, and according to ISO/ASME it will be evaluated as perpendicular to A. Also i think A,B planes are short in height.

Hallo Sebastian, Ich nutze AutoRun bei uns und es Funktioniert gut. Du kannst über Layer Unterverzeichnisse erstellen. Bei uns sind die Teile nummeriert. Ich habe ein Layer das in 100er schritte unterteilt. Z.B. 100-199 danach kommt eine Unterteilung in 10er z.B. 100-109, 110-119 usw. danach kommen die eigentlichen Programme. Diese können mit Bildern versehen werden. Im Programm gibt es den Prüfplan Kommentar wo Anweisungen geschrieben werden können die im AutoRun links erscheinen wenn das Programm markiert wird. Des weiteren kann Messablauf-Information im Prüfplan unter dem Reiter CNC eingerichtet werden. Dort können weitere Bilder, PowerPoint und glaube auch Videos hinterlegt werden. Unsere Programme sind auch im Netzwerk gespeichert. Für weitere Infos gerne auch PN. Grüße aus dem Schwarzwald

Hello, My add-on needs to run a blocking GOM command while a Modbus polling loop keeps running for a two-station workflow. Since GOM commands can only run on the main thread, I tried using multiprocessing.Process for the blocking scan. This works in the edit mode, but after the add-on is locked and packaged, the child process fails with ModuleNotFoundError when importing the add-on module. Using a temporary .py file with subprocess is not an option because it would expose the source code. I also tried threading, but it sometimes causes unexpected crashes in software, so I would prefer not to use it. Is there an official way to use multiprocessing or a separate Python process in a locked add-on without exposing the source code? If not, what is the recommended way to handle this kind of two-station parallel workflow?

I'm not for sure but aren't those surface roughness callouts to be measured with a profilometer? Rv (maximum valley depth) is one of the options on our formtracer Re is not but a google search shows it is not a standard primary roughness parameter but may be in reference to Rc or Rp. I have not used any of these parameters, so I have nothing else

I usually use getActual().inTolerance and from what I have seen it works great.

Can you provide more background what exactly is meant with Undercut. Undercut could be in general a root relief or Undercut evaluation characteristic which is not defined in standards. I know that e.g. Klinglenberg has such an charactersistic but you have to clarify what exatly has to be evaluated. Same for the other charateristic. Maybe you can share the drawing and the .act via PM?

Download Free CAD Models, STEP Files, and Test Results | NIST PMI Information and sample CAD files.

You're welcome. I apologize for not giving better information to start with.

From the great @Tom Oakes: You can create what I have designated as "Ghost Holders". Let's say you have one physical 3 position XXT holder. I add a new stylus system holder. Then, define the location of the new holder using the original #1 holder. I put my standard configured probe in the #1 holder and my RDS-CAA configured probe in the #2 holder. When I want to switch from standard to CAA, it stores the standard version and then picks it back up as the CAA version. Obviously, this can cause some confusion so everyone has to be on the same page.

Anything higher than 0.0005 is unusual for us. (That is including using RDS+CAA+0.6mm tipped L-probes with extensions)

You can set up and qualify a probe as a CAA probe. Then set up and qualify the same physical probe as a list-probe. Calypso will let you assign as many probes as you like to an adapter plate/chipID. The caveat is that you cannot have both probes installed into the probe rack at the same time (since they would need to use the same holder). To make this work we have programs that are either "only CAA", or "no CAA" for that probe and we reassign the correct probe to the holder before running it.

I'm presuming that you visually inspected the stylus for damage (under magnification)?

I wonder - have you tryied "Polygonize large data volumes"? It should handle such situations.

would be difficult, pretty sure gear pro does not have this, even if it did, you would need the proper ball to shaft ratio probe tip to not shank. Looks like you do have it measured - which is a start. Looks like you may be able to add a root relief and try that, or possibly add a K-band in this area as well. Worst case, try reading on chart, counting dots - not ideal, however.

there is also an option to 'align to feature' which should do it for you.

When you load the same mesh as CAD it should show no deviations. Working as intended. Thats why i mentioned a reference sample or master part. To my knowledge, you can`t compare freeform without a CAD. The CAD is the information for the comparision.

When i load it as a CAD model there is ZERO deviation. How would i show Actual mesh data having low and high spots without using CAD model?