All Activity

This would be for something like aligning the part to the origin so a useful normal has not been defined yet. Here you can see how Quicksurface does it. This is a good example too of a part with very organic surfaces that would be hard to pull features from in Zeiss Inspect to align it to origin. Being able to define one plane based on "best fit", would go a long way in precisely aligning the part to the origin and an axis. It also gives you a plane that you could then apply points, lines, etc, to further align it to origin.

That makes sense. I'm heading out the door on vacation for a week but I've made a note to look at this. Thank you!

Thank you Martin!

Maybe we are the only 2 people where the CT isn't a paper weight? I do the conditioning. I don't even know what the overlay is you are talking about. Fixing to test 2026 next month to see if I get scans equal to or better than 2021. We cannot afford even 1% less worse scans b/c I'll have machinists all over me with the tolerances we have to hold and we are dialed in with 2021. I have to spend a few days updating our scan scripts to accomodate the new variables and methods going from a volume to mesh.

Wait - there is more - https://youtube.com/shorts/N9TO4b0frDQ?feature=share This movement was due negative depth in strategy. Changing vector on a sphere and make it positive numbers in helix depth was a repair.

A clearance distance of 0.01" eliminates the arc motion for me.

Chance you can share a drawing or anything? I'm not understanding the "3 polyline" reference. I think of polylines as strategies for probing planes, while you've specified an OD. Are you having trouble "finding" the slots that could be eliminated via fixturing or material detection techniques (self center, material detection, missing borehole, etc) in order to probe reliably? I think you've got an OD with slots interrupting the surface, and you want to measure the OD. There are several ways to do this. 1. single points set to miss the slots 2. Create a circle (or cylinder) on the OD. In the strategy, create small arcs between the slots; one strategy for each. 3. Same as #2, but scan lines axially along the cylinder between the slots. There are other methods too. I don't want to detail any further before knowing I understand your problem.

That's terrible. I hate running from Characteristics. So much easier to optimize tool changes from the feature side. Regardless, you've solved an old problem of mine. Thanks!

There are a few programs here that were written before my time. In many of them I see a move that I don't know how to do on purpose, and I hate when it happens by accident. I've got a really good sense of how the retract and clearance distances work. I understand the sequence of stops along the road from CP to probing and back. We always have long shafts with long axes oriented along Y. We very frequently come down from CP+Z to Z zero at CL of the part in order to scan the upper 180° of the shaft. I'm quite comfortable with verifying my rotations to ensure a 180° scan starts at 90 or 270 as appropriate, and that I'm never looking to reach around or under onto the back side of the stylus sphere. In some old programs, the stylus pierces CP+Z and moves in a straight line along Z to the retract distance, which is what I want. In others, the stylus pierces CP+Z in a huge arc move; tracing a portion of a spiral that starts at the CP and persists all the way down to the retract distance. In all examples Clearance Distance is zero. In all cases we're using a stylus system with a single stylus to Z-. They aren't the same stylus though; different tip diameters and lengths across programs. Recently I programmed a sphere offline as I always do; one of 4 in a small program. When I got to the machine, 3 of them worked just as expected with straight line moves from CP to retract, but one sphere approach did the huge swoop, hellbent on colliding with every feature in the measuring volume except the one I wanted to evaluate. The really strange part is that I programmed only one sphere. I then copied that sphere and adjusted the nominal locations only; all sit at the same Z height so I adjusted X and Y only. I literally never opened the strategy window in the second sphere. The strategies for all 4 spheres are the same as I only wrote them once. Measurement Plan Editor Features has an option for Arc Motion mode which I've not explored and do not understand. All we need to know here is that every program I've ever written is defaulted to "on", and that changing it to "off" had no effect that I could see. "Form related travel within Strategy" is another heading in the editor. Again, I've not explored this yet, but everything I've ever written has this defaulted to "off", and turning it on had no apparent effect. This move does not occur in simulation, but it does occur on both physical machines every single time in those programs that use it. I used some position points to get down where I needed, so I don't have a lingering problem I need solved. Anybody know where this move might be coming from, or how to avoid it? It's baffling that I cannot spot anything different yet there it is. Below is my current system, though this "feature" has been present since 2015 at least. CALYPSO 2024 , ServicePack 5 Version 7.8.20 (27.10.2025) Accura 16-42-14 and Accura2 16-42-15, both with VAST Gold.

Hope this is an easy one. I inadvertently checked a box that said "never open the favorites window again" or something like that. This is the favorites / recent programs window that we get when we click "open". Now when I click Open I go straight to the browser. This isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to revert. How do I get my recents / favorites window back??

Be careful. Nominal size is never a factor in MMC / LMC. Only maximum and minimum sizes matter. First, I assume the FOS is an EXTERNAL cylinder. If so, it goes like this: If your external cylinder is at its very smallest size allowed by the tolerance, the design can tolerate greater deviations to position. MMC gives a "bonus" tolerance calculated by subtracting the actual size from the maximum allowable size and adding that value directly to the position tolerance given in your FCF. If your cylinder is an INTERNAL FOS: If your internal cylinder is at its very largest size allowed by the tolerance, the design can tolerate greater deviations to position. MMC gives a "bonus" tolerance calculated by subtracting the minimum allowable size from the actual size and adding that value directly to the position tolerance given in your FCF. Looking at the two red lines in your report, the top one contains the value you need to report. This is the position fully resolved including all bonus tolerance. The second line is something that should default to excluded but doesn't. It's a useless value to you. Search the forums; there are ways to remove this line with a snippet of code in your report template.

Thank you for all the feedbacks! I would share the drawing if I could but the replies helped clarify the issue a lot.

As replied in another thread - in this table where is (M) it's calculated statistical value just for SPC purposes - real value is without (M) but your tolerance is increased. (M) value can be "ZERO" when you have allout as "0 (M)" because of formula ( can be found in forum ) - in that formula is final step a multiplying of base tolerance.

in this example my position tolerance is .0000(M) my diameter is .099 +/-.003 with an actual of .097734. The result before MMC is .002709 and that was adjusted down to below .0000? is that correct?

but if the hole size is under the nominal, there should not be a change in the position right? so if your nominal hole size is 100 and the hole size is 99, if the position is .001 without MMC shouldn't if be .001 with it?

Yes, the surfaces are highlighted on the new model. I appreciate you helping out and I'll try the double cad from solidworks. I've always hated having to keep track of 2 programs and 2 reports for a part. Never know who's going to run these parts again and I'm never sure about running someone else's program and knowing I'm not missing anything. Some days I'm really confident in my programming abilities and parts like these knock me way down.

@Hector Soto, do the entities listed in the surfaces window (331 2, 340 2, etc.) highlight on the new model when you click on their names in the features window? Or, do surfaces on the previous model highlight? I'm trying to get an understanding of root cause. The surfaces of interest on the new model should become highlighted when you click the surface/magnifying glass icon and also when you select them individually in the surfaces list. Your frustration is understandable. Best practice in Calypso, which most programmers stick with, is to use separate measurement plans for separate part setups. One other option, if it's value-added to keep both models in the same measurement plan, would be to create a combined model of both setups in a design software such as Solidworks and then export them as a multi-body ACIS (.sat). Deleting the existing models and importing a multi-body .sat may prevent your current surface association issue.

I am trying to check a Perpendicularity and position using MMC. As I understand MMC, it allows extra tolerance when the diameter is larger than nominal size. In the example above the actual diameter is smaller than nominal yet the MMC position is almost .004 under the actual position. How is this possible, what have I done wrong?

the (M) is not the MMC calculation i believe it just for statistics, you can just ignore it. you can search it on the forum and find a few posts to understand it. if you had bonus tolerance with MMC it would be calculated into the tolerance for the original position.

It's working not from nominal but from minimal/maximal size. (M) on hole will get no bonus on min. diameter and full bonus on max. diameter. (L) on hole will get no bonus on max. diameter and full bonus on min. diameter. On shaft it's inverted.

I am trying to check a Perpendicularity and position using MMC. As I understand MMC, it allows extra tolerance when the diameter is larger than nominal size. In the example above the actual diameter is smaller than nominal yet the MMC position is almost .004 under the actual position. How is this possible, what have I done wrong?

These also did not work. I'm close to throwing in the towel and just creating a separate program for the bottom side. This has been beyond frustrating.

ooooof .....'could lead to incorrect results'....