All Activity

The App description is in the Techguide: https://techguide.zeiss.com/en/zeiss-inspect-2026/article/app_description_tube_check.html

Hello everyone, I would like to ask how you manage and version your Calypso inspection plans. We are currently using Calypso's built-in versioning in combination with a centralized network storage location. However, in practice we continue to encounter challenges. In particular, the traceability of older revisions, data security, and the overall reliability of the system are areas of concern for us. The immediate reason for this post is a recent issue with our inspection plan management. After contacting ZEISS Support, the problem was resolved, but the solution ultimately involved resetting or deleting the existing archive. As a result, all stored revision history was lost. While this restored functionality, it is obviously not a sustainable solution when long-term traceability and revision history are required. For this reason, I am interested in learning how other companies have addressed this topic. Centralized Management of Calypso Inspection Plans Do you rely solely on network drives, or have you implemented additional mechanisms for data protection and version control? Do you use automated synchronization or backup solutions? How stable has Calypso's built-in versioning been in a multi-user environment? Have you established any best practices to prevent lost revisions or corrupted archives? Experience with ZEISS Connected Quality ZEISS Support suggested Connected Quality – Connected Inspection as a possible solution. At first glance, the platform appears very promising: centralized data storage, Active Directory integration, automatic synchronization, and check-in/check-out functionality directly within Calypso. These features seem to address many of the challenges we are currently facing. However, the recurring license costs are significant. Therefore, I would be interested in hearing from users who have practical experience with the system: Are you currently using Connected Quality in a production environment? How much effort is required for installation, operation, and maintenance? Does the system require substantial support from your internal IT department? How reliable has it been in day-to-day use? In your opinion, has the investment been worthwhile? I would appreciate feedback from both smaller metrology departments with only a few CMMs and larger environments with multiple machines and several programmers. Thank you in advance for sharing your experiences and recommendations. Best regards

Are you sure? As far as I know Calypso can only read SAT/SAB and possibly DXF (?) without an additional license. Everything else needs an option license.

When was the last maintenance / calibration of the CMM? Was there anything out of spec? Over the years we had two cases where the maintenance tech had to change the radius of the cal. sphere slightly to get a deviating axis into the tolerance band again. They were quite old machines and it was a last resort (and of course officially documented) before they would have had to be laser calibrated again (CAA). But we never saw any issues with deviating measurement results because of this.

You can do this either with PCM inside of Calypso, orrrrrrrr you can just write a Python/Golang script that does this for you, and have the report_end.bat trigger the script. All the Python/Golang script would need access to are the char, feat, and header txt files. From there, sky is the limit. Honestly this is super simple to achieve, with almost no coding experience - ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude will easily do this for you. As for running PCM on a non-PCM machine - it would be a pain because you can't access the pre/post settings to make adjustments without a PCM license (so troubleshooting would be a pain), and the most useful command read/runPCMFile cannot be used without a PCM license - so everything has to be hardcoded.

After reading a bunch of posts, some quite heated,🤬 it looks like a lot of PCM will run on non PCM machines but there isn't a real definitive list of what will and won't work.

Thanks for the reply, DWC. 🙂 Will CMM programs with PCM in them run on other Calypso computers that don't have PCM? I'd like to put it on an offline station and transfer the CMM programs to the other CMM's.

@Zen Cat To keep it all nice and tidy you would need PCM. All of the functionality to do what you want to do is baked into Calypso, just needs unlocked with PCM. Outside of Calypso is definitely possible, just not as streamlined.

No, there is a cal routine that selects what ref sphere to use; the operator only has access to use Autorun. They are all the same size (30mm Ø), just in a different orientation/elevation.

Is it possible that someone calibrated to the incorrect reference sphere selection?

Scratch this. I found it was just inverting the sign. Easy fix, I just inverted my sign in the formula.

Update: I believe the issue is that the reference sphere is off in some way. @Richard Shomaker was spot on! Could have gotten dropped, not 100% sure. I did not find any noticeable damage. I verified the probe radius on the measured stylus system was coming in at 2.493mm. Luckily, we have 3 reference spheres on our reference sphere tree. I swapped out the ref sphere and recalibrated. The radius changed to 2.5001mm. When we remeasured the bore, it changed the result to 75.0518mm. This aligns very close to the supplier's measurements! Thanks for the help, everyone!

I know I am late to this thread, but it is something I struggled through recently. The issue I had was finding a built-in mechanism to allow for multiple measurements across multiple characteristics. The solution I found was using a characteristic table and defining the measured values in each column with descending measurement references. (see image for example callouts) It takes some time to setup, but the only limit is the number of columns you have.... I have found around 100 sample columns is the max our system can go without lag.

Plane - Polyline - Enter distance from edge - profit.

Hi all, I wondered if there is a Calypso tool to do what I want to do and thought you all would be a good group to ask. I have a part with an irregular shape but to keep it simple, it is a .030" thick plate that is about 4"x3". I need to check flatness on a border of .25" on Datum A (the entire flat surface). I clipped a small corner to show the callout. Can I create Datum A which is that Plane and then somehow create a border that is offset by .25" so that it follows the contour of the part? Thanks!

@Don M. stylus system used for the measurement.

Thanks for the feedback guys! I will verify the masterprobe rad and measurment probe rad now. @Chad Watton That is correct.

I have a similar question about this topic. Does anyone know why when I recall the rotation values it reports the absolute value? For example, I use getActual("Alignment, 8mm Rotor Profile").rotZ, the rotation value in the alignment is negative, but it reports it as positive. I'd like to graph and see trends vs positive vs negative rotations, but can't with how its reporting. It's not a showstopper, but it sure would be nice.

If the radius is off on both the MasterProbe and your stylus, you most likely have the wrong information for the Reference Sphere. If they show correct, then you have something terribly wrong with your CMM.

Was the ring gage measured using the current stylus system or the MasterProbe?

What size does it show the MasterProbe radius is, as well as the radius of your stylus.

The colors on your graph are messing with me, but are you saying 5mm, new 5mm, and 3mm probes were all measuring about the same?

Hello, You can try to save the .SLDPRT file as .STEP file and Calypso will be able to read it.

Read my mind, this was my next verification. We measured a 75.09mm ring gauge. The gauge came in at 75.073mm, so this is roughly 0.017mm under spec and aligns with the delta we are seeing vs the supplier. So what now? Is the vast head or CMM off? Should we look to get it checked out by Zeiss? Anything else I should do to verify?

Could throw on a few 2-point diameter characteristics as well to show your min/max values at each level to confirm your roundness plots.