All Activity

Benötige mal euer Schwarmwissen, Ich muss an einem Bauteil ein Lochbild messen, das aus mehreren Bohrungen Ø 0,4mm besteht. Die DuraMax lässt nur Taster mit einer Kugel-Ø 0,3mm zu, laut Info Zeiss. Welche Einstellungen / Parameter sollte ich vornehmen, um die Vermessung möglich zu machen?

I assume that the respective measurement points and the resulting flush values are determined using an extrapolated line. This approach appears to be particularly useful for nominal values. However, when evaluating actual measurements, I am primarily interested in the deviation relative to the CAD zero position, as this makes it much easier to identify the corrections that are required. As a result, the calculated values understandably differ from those obtained by simply adding or subtracting the deviations of the opposing measurement points. Nevertheless, these are the values that I can plausibly provide to a toolmaker as a correction target. They are also the values that we primarily discuss during our engineering reviews and alignment meetings. Would it be possible to implement this approach as an additional selectable option within the measurement principle? This would allow users to choose, depending on the application, between the current calculation method based on an extrapolated line and a direct evaluation of deviations relative to the CAD zero position.

Chris, Abbas Thank you very much for your help. My question was about external variables that are NOT defined in CALYPSO but come from the Windows system – in other words, a user’s environment variables. Alternatively, a way in which I can, for example, upload external test characteristics for a measurement to the (local) PiWeb database. Example: A measurement taken using a hand-held device that writes the data to a file. Then upload this data to the PiWeb database. Regards Karsten

Hallo, um Ihnen gezielt helfen zu können, benötigen wir mehr Details zur Konfiguration. Bitte melden Sie sich bei unserer Hotline, damit wir uns das Problem direkt auf Ihrem System anschauen können.

No, there still seems to be another issue in the algorithm. For the top measurement point, the flush value shows a deviation of 0.6 mm, while the difference between the two measurement points is 0.43 mm. This leaves an unexplained discrepancy of 0.17 mm. In the second section, the reported deviation is 0.47 mm, whereas the difference between the two measurement points is 0.41 mm. In this case, there is still an unexplained difference of 0.06 mm. While this is an improvement, it is still not satisfactory, especially since both sections were processed in exactly the same way.

Das stimmt, manche Pfade in den Einstellungen werden bei einem Update nicht aktualisiert. Das ist mindestens mal der Pfad zu den PiWeb-Vorlagen. Wenn ALLE Pfade veraltet sind, dann wurde höchstwahrscheinlich ein altes Backup eingespielt oder einfach der alte Config-Ordner 1:1 kopiert. Letzteren Tip (kopieren) hört man oft vom Support, aber ich bin da kein Freund von, weil dann eben wirklich alle veralteten Einstellungen in die neue Version übertragen werden, was zu Problemen führen kann. Ich benutze immer die Datenübernhame-Funktion und hatte damit auch noch keine gravierenden Probleme.

Zeiss switched to a new licensing system (see release notes), so the new license versions are not backward compatible to old license releases. But I assume releases with the same license system (old or new) are backward compatible among each other. I'm not 100% sure, but if you use a license dongle, old and new licenses should coexist happily on the same dongle. We do have a dongle and always install new versions parallel to the old ones, and we never had backwards compatibility issues.

The positioning may be done by some PCM code in the pre or post settings of the measurement plan (if you have that option).

Using tangential element will do the work for you - just recall filtered measured points from curve into your line or plane feature

I think this can be due different licencing mechanism. We have programs from 6.8 opened on 7.6 - i believe this will work, but because of different different versions of MSSQL and other software needed for newer and older Calypso you won't run all versions on same machine.

Hello, Up until Calypso 7.6, which was calypso 2023, you could get the latest license, and it will still work with previous versions. so if i updated from 2019 to 2021, i could use 2021 and 2019. When i tried updating the license to 2024, i got a message saying it would no longer be backward compatible. so i wouldn't be able to use my CMM with 2019 and 2021. So i never did. is that still the case? I have a CMM with 2019 still and another with 2021. I don't want to upgrade those licenses and then not have access to those CMMs. I gotta go through some red tape to get them upgraded which is why that cant happen at this moment. but upgrading the 2019 to 2021 shouldn't be an issue. but that is my question. i want to upgrade the license for 2019(7.0) to 2021(7.2) but it only is giving the option to update to 8.0 and i don't know if its backward compatible. Thank You, Nixon Uruchima

how can I extract the highest points of my curve to generate a plane that is Datum, my piece has undulations

Hi @Luke Cashman. Thanks for posting about this. Very interesting. We use a measurement plan to qualify all stylii, and this utilizes both 30mm and 8mm spheres. These two spheres, however, are mounted on different posts. Important: Calypso does not automatically adjust the navigation paths of a stylus qualified on one reference sphere based on the location of another sphere. Collisions are possible without proper planning. If it's necessary to fixture both your reference spheres on the same post, you'll need to plan for clearance. I'm sure this can be plotted and mathed, but you can also just observe a qualification in CNC on slow speed to get an understanding of required clearance.

That's not what i said - you would describe closely how they would be used, positions and so on. We are using star probe systems, so we have one ref. sphere at 45 angle and rotate it by 180° to cover all 5 probe tips. Calypso won't alter movements just because there can be next sphere, but if you correctly set calibration, then you can avoid collisions.

Hello, A .GXMLZ file is not a generic 3D exchange format like STEP, STL, OBJ, or Parasolid. It is essentially a compressed (zipped) GOM/ZEISS XML volume format used to store voxel volume data and associated metadata.

So Calypso wouldn't crash into the other sphere during qualification even without telling it to path around another sphere?

Hello, I would recommend checking the Flush (nominal) parameter, the Side 1/Side 2 assignment, and the evaluation direction, as any of these can cause the reported VMB result to differ from a manual calculation based solely on the measured point values.

I think there is no problem with having two ref. spheres on same stand. Calypso is asking only for it's center. If you are removing that stand with spheres, then you have to first tell it's new position of both spheres before running a program. If i remember correctly, then in program you have finding center of ref. sphere ( i am not sure if you can select which ref. sphere is selected ), but in program you have two spheres with correct diameter, which will later be used for calibration.

Hello, for reference i have never created a new probe or a new qualification program or anything. I have done research but I am having a hard time finding info on a couple different things. Currently we use a 30mm reference sphere at a 45 degree angle for every probe we have, even our small probes. this has caused some major inaccuracy in some of our smaller probes and I am getting it set up to where I would like to have the 30mm sphere standing straight up, and a 8mm ball at the 45 degree angle (unless there is a better setup that you all recommend). I believe I know how to edit our current reference sphere to stand straight up, and i believe i can figure out how to add another reference sphere at a 45 degree angle. what i want to know is do i need to put in somewhere that they are both there at the same time, to where when it does the qualification of some probes it doesn't crash into the other sphere? I'm going to be creating a new qualification program that would hopefully qualify all the probes at the same time, though if necessary i will have 2 separate qualification programs for out smaller and bigger probes. Is there anything else to consider when modifying the qualification spheres? I have never had any official training on CMMs and though I have found work instructions that help I havent yet seen something about this. Thanks!

We use a custom characteristic table created within piweb reports(custom template.) In the piweb report that is generated when the measurement plan has completed we have an action button that allows us to export the table data in excel format by clicking on the button. It was a fair bit of work on the front end of things, but it is nice in the respect that we can choose when we would like to send the data over to another application rather than having the data export every time a report is generated.

Thank you for the suggestion, the Zeiss technician ended up saying the same thing, so I purchased the 626103-6180-010 rotary joint and it did the trick.

Thank you! That works for the Individual characteristics. But that led me on track to find changing the system from ISO to ASME in the defaults. Thank you again!

Hallo zusammen, ich habe folgendes Problem: Ich habe ein Stufenprojekt für eine Messung angelegt. Es sind insg. 16 Kavitäten, die ausgewertet werden müssen. Dabei kommt die Tabellenvorlage leider an ihre Grenzen (s.u.). Gibt es eine Möglichkeit die Tabelle aufzuteilen? Also die ersten 8 Kavitäten in eine- und die weiteren 8 Kavitäten in eine zweite Tabelle zu schreiben? Vielen Dank für eure Unterstützung. Gruß Dominik

Vielen Dank für die rege Diskussion. Bei mir gehts eigentlich "nur" um den Offline PC. Wir hatten ein update von 6.8 auf 8.0. Da wurden an den Maschinen auch die Rechner getauscht. An den Maschinen hab ich also (durch Zeiss-Techniker) wieder den einfachen Calypso Pfad (ohne 8.0) stehen, weil hier die alte Version gar nicht mehr drauf ist. Nur auf der Simualtionsmaschine hab ich beide Ordner. Wobei in Arbeitsumgebung aber überall auch nur Calypso (ohne 8.0) drinnen stand. Deshalb auch die Verwirrung, weil es wurden die Calypso 8.0 Ordner erstellt aber nicht verwendet. Ich habe das 8.0 jetzt überall dazugeschrieben (auch wenn es bei meinen CMM nicht so ist) und lasse die alte installation erstmal so wie sie ist. Und gehe einfach mal davon aus, dass Calypso den Rest auch von 8.0 verwendet. Deinstallieren tu ich die alte Version also vorerst mal nicht um nichts kaputt zu machen. Hab e noch genug Probleme mit dem was nicht funktioniert. 😢

Doch, die Tasterdatenbank wird in neueren Versionen schon gesichert, allerdings nicht im Original, weil es da anscheinend unlösbare Zugriffsprobleme gibt/gab. Denn wenn SQL Server läuft und auf eine Datenbank zugreift, setzt er die Zugriffsrechte vorübergehend auf Admin-Level, so daß man die DB mit geringeren Rechten nicht mehr kopiert bekommt. In früheren Versionen wurde deshalb die DB beim Backup einfach stillschweigend weggelassen, was ich nur zufällig mal entdeckt habe (schon übel, wenn man sich eigentlich auf ein Backup verlässt...😮). Da kam nicht mal eine Fehlermeldung. Zeiss hat dann im Lauf der Zeit wohl einige Workarounds probiert, die alle nicht so wirklich funktioniert haben. Letztendlich haben sie dann die Tasterdaten vor dem Backup in eine andere Datei exportiert und beim Restore wieder importiert (siehe Screenshot). Seitdem funktionierte das zumindest bei meinen Tests zuverlässig. Aber konkrete Notfälle, wo ich ein Backup wirklich mal wiederherstellen musste, hatte ich noch nicht.