All Activity

I am having trouble with an offline planner detecting what clearly should be a collision. For a bit of backround these are new stylus' I have built up in the SSC software. Zeiss does not provide appropriately modifiable generic styii so in the example below the 'shafts' of the stylus are made from a combination of generic cylinders and generic cones. The only 'stylus' component in the build is the 2.5mm tip. Is there a setting or something I need to do to have the planner detect what is shown below, as a collision, with a custom stylus. If there is not something I can do, does anyone have an explanation as to why the simulation will not detect what is shown below as a collision as it would be good to be able to explain the situation to my coworkers when I flow down these models to them..

I followed what you both had said, thank you, much appreciated. The MMC is showing at 0.00 still? I must be having a really, really long day because something doesnt look right to me?

It still cannot calculate the feature after deleting and re-selecting the surfaces.

Maybe Create a theoretical plane that is perpendicular to the cylinders, project/intersect(not sure which one is better for this situation) the cylinders onto the plane, then create theoretical lines that is also on the theoretical plane that starts from the center of the 2 cylinders and intersects both of the the projected/intersected circles that were put on that plane, and have those lines at whatever angles you would want. then get the distance between the 2 points created from intersecting the line through both circles? I'm sure someone else can come up with a simpler/better solution than that, that's just something I've done in the past.

Given the manufacturing method and the tolerance, I don't believe this warrants 360° coverage.

You need to create a true position, change it to a best fit bore pattern (the icon next to the true position icon near the top under the label). Enter the tolerance Set Datum A as the Primary and leave the secondary and tertiary blank. Click the feature button (above "Clear datum reference"), add both cylinders, then set the best fit to allow rotation and translation. Click OK Click the MMC button. Click Calculate to refresh all the settings. Click the green Plot icon, then click plot button.

Zeiss has an excellent article on a verification program. I have used this format for testing and it appears to work well. We are waiting to implement SPC tracking on it before releasing to the floor. Not sure if this link will take to you the exact article so I'll include the title to search for as well. Diagnose Potentially Damaged Probes with a Verification Program ZEISS Portal

I don't discard any probe as "damaged" without doing a visual inspection, under magnification. It can be very beneficial to know *why* the probe is bad...If it is worn, then you definitely got your moneys worth out of it. Collisions can happen to the best of us, but if you are finding impact damage on probes and collisions have not been reported, then that could be an issue as well. Probes with material buildup can often be cleaned and put back into circulation.

Would someone help me understand what I'm doing wrong here? I can execute the Curve, and it imports the correct nominals and measures it, but when I try to open the Line Profile to evaluate it, I get an error message saying "Unable to read nominal point file!". After I get this error, it looks like it is setting the variable back to blank. After further testing I found out that removing the inquireList and just hard coding the specific set alleviated the issue, but I don't understand why it is behaving that way at all. The inquireList is just temporary for testing as I'll be moving to selectCase based specific measurements, but I'm just worried about this behavior. I'm hoping I don't have this same issue with selectCase. Has anyone ran into this before, or could shed some light on if I'm doing something incorrect.

I would use a plane for -A- (Spatial X). A cylinder for -B- (Planar Z/XY origin) and a line plane for -C- (origin Z).

Am i setting this up correctly to get this position?

Ich habe die Tage Rückmeldung vom Support bekommen: Das Thema ist auf dem Schirm, hat aber nur geringe Priorität, da erst mal Bugfixes abgearbeitet werden müssen. Kann man irgendwo verstehen. Wobei der obere Punkt schon an einen Bug grenzt 😉

Asking for some help with this composite Position? How to set it up? Thank you

Hi ZD, As Christine mentioned, this is typically a login issue. Please ensure that you fully close the Zeiss Quality Suite and check that there are no tasks related to ZQS running in the background. Next, I recommend clearing your browser cache. After doing that, reopen the suite, log in, and attempt the trial from within the suite. If you encounter any issues, try using the link you posted; I was able to access it successfully this morning. Best regards,

This is the way.

Hi @Sean Tsai, Could you please provide your script for testing? I just checked the "Hello World" from tkinter — Python interface to Tcl/Tk — Python 3.13.2 documentation, which worked in ZEISS INSPECT 2025 without any problems or workarounds: Best regards, Matthias

Thanks for that - i forgot that :-)

Put a Program Stop in the strategy of the last feature before you want the program to stop. This is found in the strategy window. You enter the text you want to see and you're done

Deleted entirely

Okay, I made a program that measure the Ø30 ref. sphere. Datum is made with the masterprobe. I then compare the other stylus systems to the masterprobe. If you then get a difference in XYZ and diameter. What do you do? do you chance the geometry of the stylus?

Assuming the OD and ID are relatively concentric, maybe result element formula (outside diameter minus inside diameter) divided by 2?

For these features, I generally prefer the curve function "Curve Distance"

You can place formula with "confirm" dialog where operator will click OK to continue. Can be place inside strategy via condition - no pcm license needed

If you would have circles at same height and mesured points against each other ( both circles with 4 points by 90° ) then you could use caliper distance and switching min / max to get wall thickness for desired axis ( switching from "MIN-MAX" to "MAX-MIN" you will get opposing side )