All Activity

Hello, I recently installed the version 2025 calypso from 2023. During the simulation while running a program the probe seems to studder or move slow then speed up a bit. I pasted a video at the bottom to show what exactly happening. Any suggestions of what could be causing this would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom CALYPSO 2025 Offline Planner Copyright © Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH - 4173 M2 G2 2025-12-13 10-53-08.mp4 Macmachine company

I use simple terms for naming probes: Combo1 Combo2 Combo3 etc. Then I have an Excel workbook that determines the builds of each probe. Attached is a copy of my Probe Builds workbook, use it as you see fit. You will notice all the odd names I inherited throughout; those will remain that way unless we see a need to rename to simpler standards. The workbook is a macro enabled workbook. I have zipped it for security. The top of sheet1 (Probe Builds) are headers with the word "Click" next to them. This sorts by probe type, design etc, and will take you to the "Quick View" sheet after it sorts. Master_Probe Builds workbook 2024.zip

Is there away to get the Piweb template name being used? I have a PCM text file that will take the default names of all our pdf reports, change them to what we want and store them in different directories. Now with the "multiple report" option it will output with extensions (1).(2), etc.... that is fine but i would like to change the names of them based on what type it is ie for (1) this will be the main report so basically remove the (1). (2) remove the (2) add "_graph" (3) remove (3) add "_bubble".... easy... but problem occurs if we mix and match in different orders.. ie run a main report and a bubble report Logic is that if PCM could read the report name i can change it to what i want with that variable instead of the (1), (2), (3) in my PCM code....

Interesting. My take, since positions of threads apply to the Pitch Diameter, I always use a self-centering helix on a cylinder feature, and I call (for an internal thread) the min circumscribed feature. I often use a centering helix (2 revs) very near the bottom and another near the top, both in the same strategy. I do work a lot with projected tolerances on threaded holes. Anyone else doing this?

I'm with Jochen. For fixturing, I might hold it in the orientation you've shown here. Is there any way you can make a fixture that accepts that larger thread on the bottom? You could just screw it into the fixture, then find an easy way to mount the fixture on your table. If needed this fixture can be set at the correct angle to align your larger (roughly X+) cylinder parallel with the table. The alignment Jochen suggests looks good. Otherwise, if you want to rotate it as I've suggested you could use that larger cylinder as spatial (4DOF), a point on the tilted face to constrain the fifth, and a circle in that smaller tilted bore to constrain the 6th DOF. If you do it this way you don't need to create angles on styli but maybe this isn't a hardship for you.

Yep. They totally broke simulation. We pay Zeiss a LOT of money just so we can be their beta testers.

Same. Two machines each with 25 identically filled pockets; both machines wearing the same probe head. As long as the actual values aren't pointed to the same location you can even run qualification routines simultaneously on both. For the record, we also have a couple dozen less-used systems we have built only one physical system. We qualify the same physical system on both machines using exactly the same name. When needed we use it on either. There have been times when I manually drop a system from machine #1 and take it straight over to machine #2 and manually load. As long as I've qualified this system on both machines there ain't a problem. So I guess I've said the same stuff as Jack.

That position callout is, in fact, incomplete. There's nothing you or Calypso can do to report a position relative to nothing. This says you can put these holes in the wrong workpiece and still pass the PLTZF. As long as your two holes are spaced properly you will also pass the FLTZF. Your company will need to contact your customer. The DRF needs to specify at least one datum to control orientation. A composite position like this needs fewer datums called in the FLTZF (lower segment) than the PLTZF (upper segment). Let's pretend the callout is complete. I'll use a datum A plane as primary for both segments, a cylindrical bore in that face as datum B used only in the upper segment, and a plane C perpendicular to A for tertiary in only the upper segment. Evaluating the upper segment, the tolerance zones for the two holes are (first) perpendicular to A and (second) equally spaced and centered around B, then (third) the entire pattern of tolerance zones 180° apart rotated around B based on their required relationship to C. This tolerance zone will be the larger of the two (.030) per the standard (assuming ASME). The lower segment with only datum A creates two smaller tolerance zones which are perpendicular to A. There is no requirement for their placement relative to B, nor a rotational component to C. In a composite tolerance BOTH must pass. Here's a quick demonstration of how this might go: 1. Holes both were machined perfectly at their nominals. Both PLTZF and FLTZF pass so composite position passes. 2. holes are equally spaced perfectly, but the pattern's rotation is "off" to C. The PLTZF would fail but the FLTZF would pass. Since one failed, the entire composite position fails. 3. holes are equally spaced around B and perfectly rotated to C, but they are both radially .007" too close to B. Here you'd find the PLTZF passes while the FLTZF fails. The composite position fails. So the upper segment provides a large tolerance for location of the pattern on the workpiece, which is why 2 or more datums need to be called. The lower segment is free to rotate and translate on the workpiece as long as their relationship one to the other is correct. And at the end of the day both must pass. Attached is a nice visual representation. This may or may not be the presentation Steven mentions above. True Position Bore Pattern.pps

I just looked and they don’t need to be on the same plane. ASME Y14.5 requires only that features reference the same datum reference frame—not that they lie on the same plane—for the simultaneous requirement to apply (Section 7.19). “A simultaneous requirement applies to position and profile tolerances that are located by basic dimensions related to common datum features referenced in the same order of precedence at the same boundary conditions. In a simultaneous requirement, there is no translation or rotation between the datum reference frames of the included geometric tolerances, thus creating a single pattern. Figures 7-46 and 7-47 show examples of simultaneous requirements. If such an interrelationship is not required, a notation such as SEP REQT should be placed adjacent to each applicable feature control frame. … This principle does not apply to the lower segments of composite feature control frames. … If a simultaneous requirement is desired for the lower segments of two or more composite feature control frames, a notation such as SIM REQT shall be placed adjacent to each applicable lower segment … Simultaneous requirements are not applicable and cannot be invoked by notation on single-segment or multiple-segment feature control frames when the datum references are different, the datum references appear in a different order of precedence, or the applicable material boundaries are different.”

That's how I was interpreting it as well, however I didn't see anything in the standard that says the features have to be on the same plane. That would be great as it would cut down on programming time a little. What section is that listed in so I can protect my behind if need be?

a fully constrained DRF is not cause to eliminate Simultaneous Requirement. In ASME Y14.5, the simultaneous requirement applies by default when: Multiple features Share the same datum reference frame And are controlled by separate feature control frames, can be a different set of holes but lie on the same plane but share the same datums and datum order. Without an explicit modifier that breaks simultaneity as in Separate Requirement.

If I am reading this correctly, it almost looks like the left and right flanks have slightly different slopes. The tolerance for FHbeta is 18 microns, but on the left flank, you have to give it a nominal offset of -32. I couldn't tell you the reason for the specification, but without further information, that's probably be my interpretation.

Hello Isaias, I just tried this and it worked fine on my computer, at least I believe it did. Which plots weren't you seeing?

For the profile, it would depend a bit on the part itself. You can do surface profiles (most) standard geometries, though there is a bit of a trick to it with the old GD&T engine (see https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=868503). Additionally, you can do it with individual points, but it is significantly harder (see https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=2495545).

Well, in this case the datum structure seems to be fully constrained right? Simultaneity makes sure that all features in a callout move together rather than separately when there are unconstrained degrees of freedom, but it looks like all of them are constrained in this example.

Starting to use the new GD&T engine instead of the classic. So concerning the accompanying callout - Because the callout is basically the same thing as having 8 individual callouts all with the same Datum Reference Frame, do all 8 holes need to be checked simultaneously?

Very similar answer to Quang Tran. I currently have 60 different stylus system identifications that get used on our machines. My naming protocol is simply what type of head it is, and then a number. Example: XT 001, XT 002, etc. All of the probes work on any machine with an XT head (interchangeable) and there’s no need to worry about getting probes mixed up. For the most heavily used stylus systems I make two systems exactly the same (one for each machine) and call them both XT 001 for example. Works good.

Hello, I am currently running two machines and I named the probe system & stylus the same across both machine. There isnt a problem when program on one and open it on the other. The program just run normally if the name matches.

Curious as to how others with multiple CMMs are naming their probes? I have a majority of programs stored online for rev control and that is working great, however every time there is a rev change, I have to go to each individual machine and update the probe names per that machine when I download the program to the machine. We have a commonly used 3-4 probes that are built exactly the same @ each machine (probe dia / length / etc). Are there any issues with naming those the exact same to remove the step of me needing to update @ every machine? I assume calypso knows/ is set up to use the individual probe data from each machine. Current Naming looks like this Machine 1: Small_Spline_Star Machine 2: small_spline_star Machine 3: SMALL_SPLINE_STAR etc etc

I understand. I have to use PCM. There are 5 groups 9 sizes and 45-part numbers. All in 5 separate programs.

Biggest problem is that the machine models are not correct... there is about 6" of extra granite surface... I have take great time to mimic my actual machine on my offline machine down to movable chuck jaws. Every version until now, the work areas and models (programs) come in exactly the same. Now, they are in the machine itself. I have 4 older prismos (oldest one is from 1997) with a 1200 1800 1000 volume. Did a simple test.. top of platter is rough -37" from machine zero on my machine.... loaded my platter cad model, translated down that much...its in the machine. Reached out to Zeiss no help so far.

@Christian Marti I don't know if he checked the unit underneath. He did hook up a monitor to the controller, looking for something but not sure it was conclusive.

Is it at all possible to use a search distance for each individual point? Or maybe take one point that you know will touch in a location every single time with search distance. Then your individual plane points can reference back based off where that search distance point was taken? I think I understand what you're asking, but if I don't then disregard that message

Hello, I was attempting to do a report containing parallelism on a car roof. Functionally, how is that done in the software? I followed the instructions but apparently I am missing something. Thank you.

hey marco, to clarify - you want a nominal surface point with dn check instead of a deviation label on the surface comparison? import gom import numpy as np gom_part = gom.app.project.parts[0] label = gom.app.project.inspection['Surface comparison 2'].deviation_label['Surface comparison 2.1'] coord = np.array(label.data.coordinate) normal = np.array(label.data.normal) x, y, z = coord.reshape(-1) nx, ny, nz = normal.reshape(-1) gom.script.cad.show_element_exclusively (elements=gom.ElementSelection ({'category': ['key', 'elements', 'part', gom_part, 'explorer_category', 'nominal_part']})) ##nominal surface pt nominal_surface_pt = gom.script.primitive.create_surface_point ( name_expression='Point_from_label', point={'interpolated': True, 'normal': gom.Vec3d (nx, ny, nz), 'point': gom.Vec3d (x,y,z), 'target': gom_part}) ##make sure its attached to cad surface gom.script.cad.adapt_elements_to_cad ( elements=[nominal_surface_pt], normal_from_cad=True, position_from_cad=True) ##mp MCAD_ELEMENT=gom.script.inspection.measure_by_intersection_with_mesh ( elements=[nominal_surface_pt]) #check MCAD_ELEMENT=gom.script.inspection.inspect_dimension ( csys=gom.app.project.nominal_elements['system_global_coordinate_system'], elements=[nominal_surface_pt], nominal_value=0.0, nominal_value_source='fixed_value', type='normal')