All Activity

Try as I might, I cannot seem to get my group to pattern properly. My goal is to measure the teeth around the OD of a part using a rotary table. Currently, the program is set to measure the left flank, right flank and depth in a pattern (i.e. it measures left flank of tooth one then left flank tooth two and so on then after all left flanks are done it measures right flanks). What I would like to do is capture all relevant features of each tooth before each rotation. In my mind this would be more efficient as I can use subclearance planes instead of the full clearance cube in the pattern. I've created additional alignments for each section and activated rotary table, but the part in simulation does not rotate and I receive collision errors as a result. I'm sure I am missing some minor detail to get this to work. Thoughts?

@TIM MCKAY I honestly don't know how many of these things are still out there, operationally. Maybe one day a new user will join and there will be three of us! 🤣

Hello, I have added inspection post load batch files to each main Zeiss program folder that automatically opens the setup instructions when the main program file first loads in the main Calypso software. Unfortunately, this does not work when using Autorun. When using a multiple station pallet, it extremely important to have the instructions open right away in order to assist the operator in loading the parts to be measured correctly into each pallet location, and to be able to X out any pallet locations that will not have a part loaded. Currently with Autorun, the setup instructions look to open only with the "Force measurement run information at CNC start" box checked in the Measurement Plan Definition. With the box checked, it requires the Run icon to be clicked by the operator for the instructions to load and open. The setup instructions will load and open automatically after Run is clicked, but that is too late as it now requires the operator to perform extra steps that should not be needed. The main issue I see is with the CNC Run Stopped screen that opens when Run is clicked: This screen being open blocks access to turn on/off the pallet locations. The only way to get back to the pallet is to Cancel Run, which causes the stoplight to turn red. This in turn forces the operator to have to reset the stoplight to green in order to continue. While it is good that the setup instructions are now open and the operator can now follow these to load the parts into the pallet locations (and turn off any location not used), it requires needing to again click the Run icon, have the CNC Run Stopped screen pop up again, then click Continue Run to finally bring up the input parameter screen for the active pallet locations and get the program to actually start measuring parts. This should not have to be so complicated just to get setup instructions to load right away when the Autorun file is loaded. I have searched through this forum for a workaround but have been unsuccessful. The only hints I have found are tied to PCM, which I do not have. I need setup instructions to load right away when the Autorun file first loads. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

@Jack Nelson.2 I assume you have 6 position characteristics to E F A. Since you're fully constrained, the need for simultaneous requirement is not required. Then, I assume you have 6 more position characteristics to Datum E only and have Sim Req selected and 6 checkboxes checked. I didn't have the same issue with the cryptic message, but I copied that last E F A position, deleted F and A, leaving E and selected circle 1. Then, copied and pasted and changed to other circles. Then, select SIM REQ, then checked the other common positions.

I really do not have to use it as base alignment. I still need to use for true position of other features. How do I set datum B as zero and use a datum C pattern for rotation only? Using datum C as best fit does not hold datum B as zero.

Projecting a cylinder onto a plane results in a line, similar to a sundial.

Hello Jochen, Sorry for the confusion. We are trying to measure the radius at the highest point on the top surface of the honeycomb structure. The measurement volume used on the ATOS Q is MV170. Another challenge is that the position of the honeycomb may vary between different parts, and the wall thickness is only 0.1 mm, which requires high-resolution scanning and careful alignment. The irregular vector orientation in the scan data is due to the plausibility check being disabled. We had to disable it because the system would otherwise reject valid points on the top of honeycomb. We suspect that during polygonization, the software may be filtering or simplifying some of the scan data, especially in areas with sharp transitions or thin walls. We will review the polygonization settings to preserve more detail. Thankyou very much, Best regards,

Martin, Correct. I found the problem. The programs were stored on the network drive and Autorun File on local drive. Network was down.

I am still not sure what you want to measure 🙂 Do try to get the highest point on the radius of the walls of the hexagons? The measurement volume is the optic set used on the atosq 12m that determines the size of the box that gets data with one shot. For example MV100, 170, 350 ... The reason for asking is, that this is (next to the camera sensor resolution) the second big decider of the min point distance. For small radii or edges you need a close point distance. From the pictures i would suggest trying out different sensor angles to the part and different settings to get better data. There are alot of artifacts around the edge/radii. From this picture you can tell something is off by the normal vectors of the points (green). They should be all roughly like the vector of secc1. Also i would reduce the length of the edge of the point edge tool, so you can determine were it touches better, maybe try touch point disc with a very small disc. The disc could help with a bad mesh.

If I try to use a just the plane, I get a cryptic message in the feature name:

Hello. Thanks for youre support, about your questions: measurement volume Atos Q Atos Q, 12M surface of the part Cilindrical surface on the honeycomb are you using any matting agent? Yes, TiO2 it´s aplying with a airbrush what exactly are you measuring from that picture? Rad H, the next are the measuring concept. We use a touch point edge measurement with an edge height of 4 mm. 3 sections and 7 points per section. how is the mesh looking in this region in detail? how solid is the mesh aquisition on the scaner? polygonisation which settings? We use standard poligonization clamping the same way or not at all? The part was measure in freestate why compare single points and not results? that will always put the scaner in a very bad position. Use the information available like you would in real world measuring task and dont try to use the scaner like it is a cmm with a switching probe. The problem uf use other method, like a cylinder diameter, is the thickness of the honeycomb and the section or the diameter. Radius: how much of a full circle? it's only a 18/360 of the total diameter point (edge) 4mm vs ballprobe 2,5 mm is a vastly different thing, think about using something else for the scanner. Ok, do you have a propose? Why is your cmm so inaccurate? Could be a hint to a problem in the approach. +/- 0.0027 mm aproximatly Thanks for your support.

Thanks for the feedback @Randawgg yeah that makes sense for sure. I will give it a shot. I am using Calypso 2021 (7.2).

In Calypso 8.0 and the example, I’m not sure I’m setting up the 2nd tier correctly. Calypso won’t let me pick a plane – It forces me to generate a secondary alignment with just -E- in it to refer to. Is that right? Doesn’t seem like it. Also, how is Calypso tying the second tier to the first? It forces me to use a separate simultaneous requirement. It’s like it’s just another true position call out like the old Calypso.

I would probably measure as cylinders and intersect with the OD. If you measure as circles, then the "depth" at which it is measured plays a huge role in it's position evaluation. If the part isn't machined really close to perfect, I could see it becoming an issue. I'd also consider changing the coordinates to polar. What Calypso version are you on? I'm not sure how the best fit handles a pattern where the axis of the features are not parallel/perpendicular to the primary datum.

whenever I need to intersect a non-standard geometry and nothing else works, try recalling the points into a curve, 2D or 3D, those seem to have more options for intersecting. I suggest making the nominal curve from CAD if possible.

There's a bit of grandma's ham fallacy here. Its just the way we've always done it. In fact, I do push the GearPro results to PiWeb and embed them in the reports. But the gear reports display very small in the PiWeb template I use. But I also use ghostscript to stitch the full size reports to the end of the PiWeb pdf. Now, i will have to edit my PiWeb template to display the reports bigger. And I'll probably want to save it as its own template, that way I don't get any unintended issues on other programs that use that PiWeb template. Then I'll have to troubleshoot any formatting issues that invariably pop up with PiWeb. I love PiWeb and I hate PiWeb. I love all the options and my custom reports for some parts looks really amazing; but too often it goes against my Occam's Razor approach. Why would I spend all day editing/testing a template when I could accomplish the same thing by just clicking a checkbox.

Hallo Erim, gehe zu Prüfplan Editor dann auf Protokolle und dann auf Warngrenzen in %. Dort kannst du verschiedene Sachen einstellen. Vielleicht hilft dir das Gruß Jörg

Any reason you don't use the PiWeb Report where GearPro pushes the data to Calypso - including the PDF images which are then embedded into the report?

Hello experts. I am using calypso 7.4 version but I do not have a PCM license. I would like to see a warning on the screen for a characteristic that is out of tolerance. Could there be a solution to this situation other than PCM? I tried the Message option in the characteristic editor menu, but the system does not work.I searched in the forum. but I couldn't find it. I'm not sure I brought this up to the right group. I'm sorry about that.

Hello Rodrigo, we need way more information. im just thinking in writing ... measurement volume Atos Q surface of the part are you using any matting agent? what exactly are you measuring from that picture? how is the mesh looking in this region in detail? how solid is the mesh aquisition on the scaner? polygonisation which settings? clamping the same way or not at all? why compare single points and not results? that will always put the scaner in a very bad position. Use the information available like you would in real world measuring task and dont try to use the scaner like it is a cmm with a switching probe. Radius: how much of a full circle? point (edge) 4mm vs ballprobe 2,5 mm is a vastly different thing, think about using something else for the scanner. Why is your cmm so inaccurate? Could be a hint to a problem in the approach.

Reference B is the intersection point of the bore and the surface. The 10mm dimension indicates the area within which the surface is to be measured. For RPS alignment, it's crucial that the process runs in loops and that the model is not transformed. Typically, there are 6 points for RPS. We deal extensively with alignment in the automotive sector.

Problem solved! Apparantly, Autosave was enabled in Calypso, which was the cause of the problem.

That’s a very clever question! Is that really the case? Is the projection point the point where the axis of the cylinder intersects the projection plane? Is the point of intersection the point where a line perpendicular to the projection plane intersects the MIDDLE of the cylinder’s axis? What is completely unclear to me is the position of a cylinder in general. This is because the question arises as to which point on the axis of a cylinder is used to determine its position.

@DWC does anyone else use these CT's? I have 50 machinsts wishing all the CMM parts were on the CT at this point....they didn't like the CT until I got it dialed in and now thru correlation with many systems this is almost replacing the CMM as the gold standard....although my heart is always with the accuracy of a good and well calibrated CMM....if I run a part on the CMM and CT I get nearly the same results in PCDMIS. How has no one offered an opinion on the OP's question?

Put some green highlighted points(or section cut) you are using to create a radius on that mesh....no one knows where you are measuring the radius at with just a picture of a mesh.