All Activity

It's usually called "spinbox", toggle switches are on or off. How ever, I tried it, hated it, had to modifiy how it function, ended up sort of accepting it. https://youtu.be/k779jjXIaS8 It would be nice if some changes where made to EULA, so it implicitly allowed sharing of community adaptations. Almost everytime they make adjustments to the UI, everyone screams out loudly in protest. So naturally, changes in apperance is keept to a minimum.

This drawing is hysterical. Too bad your sales team opted to accept the job. Nobody can check this stuff to this drawing. Datum A has no constraint on any rotations or translations. It can be in the wrong part in the wrong building in the wrong country and upside down. True position value is zero. Perfect every time. That composite position? Best I can say is someone in drafting tried pretty hard to engineer but failed. These four holes can also be anywhere in the world within .03. The true position value would only be a function of their vector angles to A. IF the upper FCF had just one additional datum this would make sense. I'd do the following, but it's not what's drawn: First probe the hole labeled "A" as a cylinder. Now probe the 4 holes as a pattern; I'd go with cylinders. - Item 3 I'd do as you suggest. Make the plane through which datum A is bored your primary datum. I'd make the left edge my secondary and the bottom my tertiary. I'm making stuff up. There's no reason you should "know" this, and there is no "correct" evaluation. -Item 10 I'd use the same primary datum as item 3. In this case I'd use datum A as secondary. Again I'm forced to guess what the engineer meant so we'd all interpret this differently. I'd create a separate position char for each hole. - Item 11 I'd use only that same primary datum again and ignore the reference to A. I would not invoke a secondary datum. Create a position char and select your 4 hole pattern as the feature to be evaluated. I would communicate all of this to my customer as soon as possible; preferably before you have parts to check. "position in more than 2 directions": I'm not sure I understand but maybe we're just not using the same words. Let's try this: Assuming you've got the old primary plane flat on your table, and the 4 holes are away from you toward Y+, - the hole labeled datum A has a location in X and Y, with its axis along Z. Calypso will locate a cylindrical tolerance zone at the nominal X and Y. When you look at the nominals, the Z value will actually just be the Z value of the feature origin. - The four holes each have an X and a Z with their axes along Y. When you get your CAD you'll see a nominal X and a nominal Z for each. Calypso will evaluate deviation from these nominals. Great questions about projections. Since your customer did not communicate anywhere near enough information, I would not project these. I'd check them as cylinders (I'm sure some here will disagree) because I always do. I've never been comfortable providing positions of projected circles which ignore all deviation to the normal vector. If some bonehead puts this hole in at 45° rather than 0, a projection won't see it. Calypso will give a passing true position on a part that will not assemble. Last thing: Yes, the bottom line of a composite TP serves to keep the pattern of holes to each other. It also serves to keep the tolerance zones parallel or perpendicular to datum A. In this case, if there were a secondary datum in the top line, this bottom line would have smaller (.015) tolerance zones centered around the nominals and perfectly perpendicular to datum A. Good luck Darci!

edit: meant to say "this means that the Base Alignment should NOT be assigning degrees of freedom to the profile characteristic."

@Gabi Wanish, you're an extremely intelligent programmer, and your company is fortunate to have you on their team. It's understandable to feel overwhelmed by the absence of your mentor and the demanding timelines we often face in manufacturing. You've got this. Having a trustworthy mentor is pivotal, but sometimes the most important phases of growth in our professional careers happen when those mentors are removed from the scene. ================================== Profile of a Plane Constrained to A Single Datum ================================== Let's look at the GD&T requirement first and then how to properly set up the profile characteristic in Calypso: "They want a profile of a plane that is parallel to datum A and the callout is to datum A only." As you figured out, this means that the Base Alignment should be assigning degrees of freedom to the profile characteristic. You also were on point that Calypso has a tendency to assign constraint to any degrees of freedom that it can in a characteristic, and it uses the Base Alignment to fill in any missing constraints. The best solution: While there are multiple ways in Calypso to solve this, a Geometry Best Fit (GBF) Alignment is your best option for making sure the Base Alignment doesn't assign unnecessary constraint. Create a GBF and select the Datum A plane as the feature of reference. Leave all evaluation constraints checked. If you're concerned that this allows Datum A more constraint than it's due, there are ways to create tiered alignments that free up constraint (for example, z-rotation and x,y translation). However, I don't think it will be necessary in this case. Try that out and see if it's a viable option. PS, feel free to reach out anytime you have questions.

Maybe it could. Uhm I don't know it's locked. Thanks for the help tho.

Thanks Jeff, we just installed the 2025 version and we are trying to workout the bugs.

That "Standard" option - what's there? I am wondering if you can do manual path - i remember when i was doing qualification for disk i had to do manual path - defining own points. Perhaps this would be the way. But if you have smaller sphere, then it would be better to use that.

probes 6 single points and I do not feel that this is a good enough process to qualify the "Styli"

Well we would like to just stick to using the 30mm sphere that we use for all our styli qualifications just to keep it simple. We only have two modes to use for qualification and if we use the geometry re-qualification it actually does use the sphere coverage correctly and will not go to the equator but at the same time it only probes 6 single points and I do not feel that this is a good enough process to qualify the sphere. Scanning would be better but when we use that method it always goes to the equator and ignores the sphere coverage.

You can define how you will calibrate your probe - pasive, tensor, dynamic tensor. I also found you posted a question in another post. That is not working?

what do you mean not using tensor?

You can only make your program to calibrate selected probes - you can make program for every probe you have, which would be wise , to have all probes calibrated at same time. There is no way to get list of probes used in all programs.

I think if you reduce coverage and not using tensor, then it should do the trick.

I have 4-sided star with really short arms which cause it to shank out during qualification. Is there any way to prevent the tactile scanning from going to the equator so that it does not shank out?

Is there any way to qualify a on the sphere without going to the equator?

All I want for Christmas is for Zeiss to fix the planner.... 2025 is broke. nothing works that correct way anymore.

I can't believe I never knew that. Thank you.

Hi all, Why does even the latest Calypso calibration still suck? Why is there no option like “Mark Used” in PC-DMIS? Is there any quick and easy way to create a calibration program instead of going through each feature to check which probe it uses? Even then, we still have to manually input the formula to check the sigma and the radius. Finally, is it possible to create a single combined program that calibrates all the styli used across all programs?

Calypso needs major UI revitalization and a genuine modernization from start to finish. As much as I love Calypso and it's intelligent approach to digital metrology, I find myself flirting with intelligent UI advancements in newer software such as QVI's Zone3 (version 14 and newer). The user experience is paramount in software, and although noteworthy development and improvements are happening in Calypso, most of these arise from the math and geometry geeks at Zeiss. They still undervalue the critical importance of UI and visual elements.

we are doing with probing 6 points all same angle.

The release notes say it was removed from 2024 and future versions, although my own 2024 install still has it. You might have to use 2023 or some such version to convert your database files before getting back to 2025.

Hi @Tom Prophet The solution to your issue is a setting in windows, not Calypso. To fix this: Go to the computer you mentioned that opens the image in Paint. Right click on any image file that has the same extension as the one you use for part setup instructions (usually this is either a .jpg or .png file). Then, click the "change" button to assign a different default app.

I agree.

Thank you much...

@Tom Prophet Go to the file location of your image. Right click the image, go down to properties. In the window that opens, you will see "Type of File:" and directly underneath that "Opens with:". Click the Change button, and select the preferred app (Microsoft Photos App?).