All Activity

@Marek Novotný Well without pre-alignment you can not use CAD model to define elements and it's measuring principle. Although you can do definition of element on CAD and manually select on mesh to create same element on actuals. Or measure only on mesh. Many older drawings are showing only axis of a few elements, like for cylinders or dividing axis. But missing how to achieve questionable dimensions on deformed part ( like in our case of forged parts with places of missing material due material flow ) About Dewarping part - that goes to specific industry and material. I can not tell to a customer that after straightning that part he will achieve a part according to drawing. That can be on bendable parts like plastics and thin metal sheets. Also dewarping is not for beginners. From your screenshot i can not tell what you are doing, but that seems to me like an overkill. Basic RPS should be sufficient with correct measuring principles - like projected distance, selecting axis in distance. But i would use that while on measuring single parts on an assembly. There it would be usefull.

Hello team , I think that pre-aligment is first step after that i construct main aligment according to drw. You can use RPS , by geometric elements , plane/line/point. The drawing must have references or at least axes For example i use RPS and a lot of best-fit (based on RPS) - but it depents on the evaluation of the elements. One of the solution is Dewarp the parts. What do you think ? Nice day.

I wonder - plane with circular path would work too and it would fit definition of a hole position better.

Hallo Sittik, das Verhalten klingt nicht nach einem Anwenderfehler, sondern eher nach einem Problem in der Software 2026, insbesondere weil die gleiche Vorgehensweise in 2025 funktioniert. Ich würde empfehlen, den ZEISS Support zu kontaktieren und den Fall inklusive Software-Version und Fehlerbeschreibung und Supportdaten (Hilfe / Systemanalyse / Supportdaten) zu melden. Falls es sich um einen bekannten Fehler handelt, können die Kollegen dort auch direkt über einen vorhandenen Fix oder Workaround informieren. Viele Grüße Christine

Erzeuge zunächst eine Gerade, die über die Bohrung verläuft und achte drauf, daß mindestens die relevanten Sollwerte (im Beispiel unten die Z-Koordinate und der X/Z-Winkel) exakt passen, denn das wird später die Referenz für die Berechnung der Min-Koordinate sein: Dann erstelle die Minimum-Koordinaten-Auswertung und gib die Gerade als Prüfelement an. Als Bezug gibst du in diesem Fall üblicherweise das Sollelement an. Der Geometrietyp ist hier egal, da du nur die Koordinaten brauchst: Die Minimum-Koordinate wird immer rechtwinklig (bzw. tangential/radial bei Kreisen etc.) zum Bezugselement berechnet. Darum gibst du in diesem Fall das Sollelement an, denn nur dann kannst du sicher sein, dass der Winkel und damit die betrachtete Abweichungsrichtung immer gleich ist. Würdest du das Istelement angeben, würde die Abweichung rechtwinklig zum eingepassten Element berechnet, was Schwankungen ergeben könnte. Kommt immer auf die Länge der gescannten Gerade und die Oberflächenbeschaffenheit an. Auf diese Art kann man übrigens auch den "höchsten" Punkt eines Kreises in einer bestimmten Richtung berechnen: Dazu ruft man die Kreispunkte in eine Gerade zurück und wertet die Min- bzw. Max-Koordinate aus. Auch hier wieder mit dem Sollelement als Bezug. Mit dem Winkel der Sollgeraden kann man dann die Auswerterichtung steuern.

Also check if you accidentally put one or more space characters at the end of a line. And of course you should avoid any kind of special chracters in your entries. Only charcters and numbers.

HI LORENZ THANKS!! it works really well... !

Danke Norbert, scheint eine gute Strategie zu sein. Kannst du mir bitte die Auswertung der "Min-Koordinate der Linie" näher beschreiben ( Vorgehensweise )? Habe mit dieser Strategie noch nie gearbeitet.🙁

I don't understand what you are doing. Are you prealigning a mesh and a volume at the same time to a CAD model? I don't know how to do this. That black plane on the volume cut can be removed by going to 2d sections when the volume is highlighted and deselecting shaded in 2026 or in 2021 using the dropdown to off. Can you explain how you are lining up a volume and mesh at the same time to a CAD model. We don't have a need for this, but it is interesting.

Thank you both. “Is there a method to select specific features or dimensions and adjust the decimal precision for only those selected items?”

There is a 'smalltalk' coding option, it's close but not exact. I did try to build a custom one awhile back, I think I uploaded something on the forums... when I find I'll share but it's not perfect.

@Randawgg i am looking for setup to load into notepad++ basically i want my editing tool look like PCM editor in Calypso with all the color coding

Are you looking for this? There is an option to load settings, but I doubt it can load .xml files but you can try.

not sure if this is the right place to post this question (Mods feel free to relocate) I do a lot of offline programming and use notepad++ for ease of use and formatting unfortunately, when doing the same with Calypso, I lose the colour coding with other platforms, like Renishaw's Modus or similar, I found an .xml file that i could import into Notepad++ as user defined language I had built up one myself years ago that was very close, but my pc died and i lost all my settings I am sure one of you geniuses here has something that can share, please and thank you 🙂

i might be missing something here but i created a file like yours and have the same code, just simpler got rid of "" i tried to add val() and still got same output if i divide by 1000, i get -0.1d for last value i attached my text file, try it with this and you will now if it is your file formating or calypso PCM Test.txt

I depends on what you need from that feature. Wouldn't 3 circular path with 8 points be sufficient? For Accura i saw approx 1s for a point

I did not know this! Thanks for the nugget of wisdom. Rigidity is at 1.263, so pretty poor... by probing dynamics is at 30%, measuring force is at 200mN, Qualifying in Tensor. After playing around with it this gave me the best sigma value. But im open to try new qualification settings if you've had better luck.

I suppose I could use single points but were trying to keep cycle times down and we feel like scanning is faster. What would you recommend for a point count if we moved to single points. Im worried about increasing the magnitude of error on the measurement by going in through both sides. Historically, in our experience measuring from 2 sides has lead to more discrepancies in our results than good.

Perhaps IT can revert if system has a last version. If you send me that file i can check it when i will be at work ( 12hours from now ) and send it back. Just PM me or if it's not confidential you can possibly post it here.

Are you using the recommended Filter? Is there a reason you have to scan instead of using single points? (Its a quick easy check to change a strategy to single points to see if scanning dynamics are affecting your measurement. )

Still doing the same thing. No dice. Is there a way to just restore it to yesterday's date?

Then i would try to save that file as ANSI instead of UTF-8 - nothing more is comming to my mind. It should be really simple action: Open file in notepad copy last line and paste it change name save it There should be no whitespace so "5=Phil M" ( without quotes )

Restarted Calypso and the Computer. It was working before just tried to add the new employee's name at the end. Put an empty line at the end and still does the same thing.

Have you tried restarting Calypso? I don't think you have something bad in that file - i presume it was working before, you just added a line. I would try to add empty line on end of that file.

We have a new employee and I went to add their name to our list. Now when I try and run a program I am getting an error message saying the following. Can anyone Help me?