All Activity

Any way to fix it?

It goes to the center of the DRF. If you only have a Plane as the Primary, then it will go to the center of the plane. Very annoying indeed.

Hi everyone, I am looking for the PDF drawings and CAD files for the following parts. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate my files. Would anyone be able to share them? Any help is greatly appreciated!

So I looks like they expect a very rough surface texture and they want a .015 band of surface variation ignored. If that's the case, then I think you want some type of data filtering to happen.

This is very true. They were recently bought by MiniTab. At first, I was like great, we'll get a bunch of nice MiniTab integrations. BUT NO. All they changed was switching from a perpetual license to a subscription model. Legacy clients like myself are unaffected. But I don't see any reason to upgrade ever. I'm sticking to version 4.1 and 4.3 for life.

Hi, please try to use the App "Export Volume as Slices" from our Software Store to export the volume data into a set of TIFF images. -> https://software-store.zeiss.com/de/products/apps/export-volume-as-slices Best, Lorenz

This isn't clicking in my brain. If I do not use datums, then I am violating the required DRF.

I need matched sets of three 123 and 246 blocks. All I can find are sets of two. If you have information on these, please post in here.

In the picture below, you'll see Calypso thinks the center of the bolt pattern is located a couple inches above and slightly behind the highest bolt hole in the pattern. Consequently on the report (bottom picture), the nominals are way out in left field. The amount of deviation looks to be correct but when the program actually runs, we won't be able to tell which hole is off, what direction, and how much. The machinist won't have the required information to make the adjustments.

QC-Calc is great, but they were recently acquired and they have changed their licensing structure in a very disappointing way. Be aware....

This is exactly how our RDS head behaved when it was dying. Certain angles were "bad". We were able to get around it by using one rotation over from our bad angle, but eventually had to replace the RDS head at great expense. Zeiss was not able to point to a cause for our failure and did not indicate that collisions would be a root cause.

For that number you can report min/max deviation point from all points of profile. Perhaps switching to Asme will do something. I am not at Inspect right now.

Hallo, ich arbeite mit der ISO 1101. Bei der Auswertung eines Flächenprofils mit Bezug wird erwartungsgemäß immer die doppelte Abweichung angezeigt. Meine Frage dazu: Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, die Darstellung bzw. Auswertung so umzustellen, dass nur die halbe Abweichung (Abstand zum Sollprofil) angezeigt wird? Vielen Dank im Voraus für Ihre Unterstützung.

Are the actual results showing large positional deviations, or is it just the nominals not matching the print specifications?

@Darci Burch Is this just a one off verification or an ongoing production check? Might be worth it to just outsource it to a third party inspection laboratory if you have the budget.

We also have a Keyence IM but its an older one and I haven't had much luck with small parts like this in the past so I don't know if that will be any better.

@Darci Burch Yea the juice is probably not going to be worth the squeeze with the CMM. This is a light/vision system job, maybe with some professional putty.

QC-Calc has weaknesses. But for cheaply gobbling all cmm data its great. I don't do much analysis in QC Calc. I pretty much only use it to export ASCII files then run python scripts to get the data how I want it.

The angles radii both directions on the slanted indents, as well as the angles of the slanted indents to the top of the part. I agree the CMM might not work out well, but I was asked to try.

I used QC-Calc many years ago when PiWeb didn't exist and I needed to data crunch a lot of CMM data (and I had been previously hand typing it). It was a great solution at the time, but as soon as PiWeb came out, we went that direction and never looked back. QC-Calc pretty quickly got messy with keeping data nice-and-tidy (I remember the big thing was it kept databases together based upon number of characteristics, so it was a mess if you ran via current selection or mini-plans).

I was able to get probe deviation, stylus diameter and reference sphere diameter into 2 probe qual programs. Question.....what happens if a timer get set for probe qualification. I'm think of set a 24hr limit on at least 2 probes so that if they don't run qualification of the 2 probes they can run parts. The 2 I would set this limit on are the 2 most used probes on this Duramax. They measure ID's and OD's of cylindrical parts that all have a ±.00025" tolerance. We want to make sure they do it, so a CMM that wouldn't work for them is the poke-a-yoke for required probe qualification.

UPDATE: Calypso program editor Direct link: (v0.2-alpha) https://github.com/justyand/zeiss_pgm_editor/releases/tag/v0.2-alpha Changelog: corrected parsing file - now it should show correct treeview

WATCH YOUR MOUTH RICHARD . Just kidding by the way I love my QC Calc. For this, it will depend on what your goals are. For a single part from a single cmm, then great, use PiWeb. But if you want to combine data from multiple cmm's then they want you to buy the SBS version. That turns PiWeb into P$Web real quick. Or P€Web for my European folks.

What probes do you have available? I'd use a 1.0mm star probe to extract all the features. clocked with the dimple. add in circle scans and recall into lines for the funky angled mill areas. secondary alignments for each of them. or space points all around and calculate deviations.

@Darci Burch What are you trying to measure? What are the tolerances for those characteristics? I would argue the CMM is not the best way to inspect this piece.