All Activity

I was kind of thinking along the lines of Edgar, Where the profile callout is giving you more of a location reference and the note is giving you a form reference. Whereas if you were to think of it as a flat surface, the location of the surface needs to align within the main profile callout, but then no part of that surface can vary by more than the note almost like a .015 flatness

E.g. if you want to have an Inspection section. Nominal and actual plane must be geometrically identical to get a deviation result. If you have applied a measuring principle to a nominal plane, e.g. Bestfit you usually will get an actual plane which is not geometrical the same plane as the nominal plane (otherwise you wouldn't habe to measure your specimen). If you create a section on nominal and actual with the combination of nominal and actual plane and 'Referenced construction' you will get not the expected deviations in the Inspection section (usually you want to have a section on the actual data which is geometrically exact at the nominal plane geometry). There a lot of industries which requests that: Automotive, Airfoil, etc.

@Martin Jánský.2 what do you think about them getting rid of the feature being measured from the pop up menu? We just switched to 2026 and it drives me nuts. You can see it missing in the above image.

@Bernd Alpers We never use actual section. I'm sure there may be some cases when you need it, but I have never encountered one. Sometimes we cut on the CAD X,Y, Z plane so using actual vs reference it almost irrelevant, but I'd still use reference on X,y,Z planes b/c if you change them somehow the won't break as easily as the OP poster here saw. I'm assuming if you wanted to use actual due to a poor stabilized plane, you could instead find a way to stabilize it(ie directing it based on a primary datum) or some machined feature and still use reference. Other than that, I don't see a use case for ever using Actual Section. Can you give me an example when it is desirable to use Actual Section?

This error, for us, has been when writing to the network and something interrupts that process. (Our corporate cybersecurity software HATES calypso programs.) And our solution has been to never use traditional network windows fileshares with calypso. Using sharepoint has some concept of "syncing" files instead of "copying" files that does not upset our IT department

On ZEISS's recommendation, I renamed the file "CALYPSOFileDialog.exe" because the official method of disabling this new menu caused extremely long loading times on my system. However, renaming the file has a downside, at least on both of my machines. The Windows Explorer now opens in the Workarea folder instead of the Inspections folder. This is also quite inconvenient.

I would use "Same deviation" and fill both coordinates - otherwise no. Result of TP will be the same if you just fill ABC into datums. Nominal coordinated will be taken from feature.

Problem can be, that you report YZ distance, but don't forget height and A1/A2 angles for that feature. Also norm is not comming directly from axis of that element but individual sections from measured data. You can enable detailed TP, so you would see deviations also for axis.

Hey Brice, can you also give me an example of the Dialogcode please?

Hello, I have a small problem with the position calculation of holes and hope you can help me. According to the standard, the position can be calculated using the following formula: Position = 2 × √(a² + b²) For some results, this works correctly: However, for others, it does not match at all. Do you have any idea where my mistake might be? Greetings André

That is exactly what I was talking about. I can make it go away (If I remember correctly, it's even possible to do it from the dialog window with the context menu). But with each new service pack or revision upgrade it comes back. I would prefer to make it go away for good. Or even better, to have a config option.

Hello, I am experiencing an issue with the gap and flush evaluation, particularly regarding the flushness calculation. I am unable to reconcile the reported deviations with the individual measurement values. My current approach is as follows: Measure the defined points on each respective component. Calculate the flush deviation as the difference between the two measured points. This is done irrespective of any nominal shingling (step offset) that may be specified. However, when I perform the evaluation using the VMB app, the calculated values do not match the deviations obtained from my manual calculations. Could you please clarify what I might be doing incorrectly? Which parameters can be adjusted to ensure that the evaluation results correspond to the actual correction requirements of the components? Thank you in advance for your support. Best regards, Stefan

Go to Prepare > Tools > Coordinate Systems. You can create coordinate systems there, which you then need to select for the element or result.

Has anyone found a solution? I get that error sporadically too—though I haven't seen it for a while now. Still, I'd be interested to know the cause.

Can i use "Rotate to distance to the +X axis:" in case of the attached drawing ?

It crashes with me trying to do nothing more then go to the setup tab, what I guess is happening is that it is trying to initialize the sensor when you click the setup tab but the sensor does not initialize due to the software prompting the user to do the setup tab to configure the scanning volume and it does not know what to do. The odd part is that I have been able to get the software to let me go to this tab without any issues after it crashed when I returned with the system from travel. Now it is back to crashing on the setup menu while I am on travel. it is the same computer, scanner, and configuration as was used in the home office but when I go on travel this crashing problem occurs.

Also - I'm surprised that no one suggested a 3d Best Fit Alignment - it would work well for a part like this.

I'm with Jeff on that one. I've measured some incredibly small parts with tactile probing. This is probably the smallest part I've ever measured. There are actually (10) individual parts here, they are just interconnected. .1" x .125" - lol.

I doubt it's very drastic improvement. For me, the simulation was doing OK for a while (since .08 I think?), at least performance-wise. My biggest issue is that I can't import styli from the creator properly. Let's say I have a stylus with 5 probes set-up with creator, numbered, named and everything. When I import, it just shows a styli with name "0" and some random number, and just one of the probes. Visually on CAD the probes are there, but somehow Calypso doesn't have their data. It's weird.

How to cretae new alignment on another surface?

Hey Austin, The iDIC "Image Scale" value is the same as "Local Resolution" in the ARAMIS App. To find it: ARAMIS App → Select your camera, lens, and measuring volume → Read the "Local Resolution" value (px/mm). That Local Resolution value is the image scale used in the iDIC Good Practices Guide.

subStr must interact differently with a list than a string. But I get the same error from your first post when trying to parse through a list with subStr. Maybe it has something to do with how the text file is encoded. 🤷‍♂️

Hello Abbas, Yes, I have tried flipping back and forth between those two settings, but it has no effect on the "bad" Calypso windows.

Hello Zak, Not that I have noticed but do suspect it is possibly a windows issue as everything looked fine for the first 6+ months of using the workstation, but then one Monday morning I loaded and launched everything like normal to find Calypso text/font not looking right.

Hello, Yes, several customers have successfully scanned bellows with both GOM Scan 1 and T-SCAN hawk 2. Capturing all the data depends on the depth and spacing of the folds. In general, T-SCAN hawk 2 tends to perform better on deep or hard-to-reach features due to its handheld laser scanning approach, while GOM Scan 1 may struggle with areas that are hidden from the cameras. Multiple scan angles and, if needed, scan spray can help improve coverage