All Activity

My argument that MMR/LMR is the simulation of a gauge I have only said to make clear what the motivation for a datum system under material requirements is. Of course this is only an illustration what is going on. But if you like the explanation the same result please have an look into the standard. See ASME Y14.5.1-2019 (only for planes, for width elements you have a similar definition there): "4.7.5 Datum Features of Size Referenced at MMB a) The candidate datum set of a cylinder is the set of axes of all datum feature simulator of MMB size that [enclose] {are enclosed within} the datum feature. For secondary or tertiary datum features, the simulators are constrained to be basically oriented and, if applicable, basically located to the higher precedence datum. [...]" This is what the software test. And in your case is seems to be the problem that their exists no valid candidate datum set. Yes I admit it can be confusing that the error message uses ISO vocabulary (the definition for the ISO standard is the same but the have other names for similar concepts), maybe we should respect the chosen standard for error message text.

In my opinion, if you like to simulate that you put the part on a surface plate then this plane should be the first datum. But nevertheless we could solve this problem for some cases. Therefore please check with ZEISS Inspect 2027 (when its released) if your problem is resolved and this error message is gone for good. Feedback on this matter is highly appreciated, so that we think about the next cases to be solved.

@Martin Jánský.2 Dann habe ich Matthias Frage falsch verstanden.🤔

Danke für die schnellen Antworten! 🙂 Vorrang hat aus meiner Erfahrung heraus immer die qdasconv. Man muss in der qdasconv den Speicherpfad aus kommentieren, dann wird vorrangig der Pfad aus Calypso genommen. Beim Speicherpfad für die Qdas darf keine Endung wie TXT oder so dahinter stehen. Im Grunde funktioniert das bei uns schon viele Jahre ganz gut. Man hat so den Vorteil für jedes Programm ganz individuell einen Speicherort für die Qdas Daten zu hinterlegen. Das einzige Problem was wir damit haben ist, das fast immer die erste Datei verschluckt wird. Ich hab das Gefühl das es mit dem Netzwerk und der Länge des Pfades zusammenhängt.

@Jörg Apfelbach You are making just a path for QDAS files - you can not alter file name here.

Hallo Matthias, wir haben auch keine Probleme, aber was mir bei deinem Eintrag auffällt, ist das am Ende deines Eintrags .txt fehlt. Bei uns sieht es so aus. Vielleicht hilft das dir. P.S. den Pfad musst du für deine Bedürfnisse anpassen. Neuer Pfad mit Messlisten Nummer erstellt 2024 "Q:\MESSRAUM\_qdas\Messprotokolle\"+strElement(3,".",dateInNumbers())+"\"+getRecordHead("u_Monat")+"\"+getRecordHead("u_Messliste")+"\"+getRecordHead("u_bearbeitungsmaschine")+"\"+getRecordHead("planid")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_Bemerkung")+"_"+getRecordHead("date")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_Schicht")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_pruefgrund")+"_Nr._"+getRecordHead("u_Auftragsnummer")+"\"+getRecordHead("u_teilebezeichnung")+"_"+getRecordHead("drawingno")+"_"+getRecordHead("time")+"_Teil_"+"_"+getRecordHead("partnbinc")+"_"+getRecordHead("vda_remark")+".pdf" ************************************************************************************************************************************************************ Messdaten abspeichern "D:\Mess-Daten\"+strElement(3,".",dateInNumbers())+"\"+getRecordHead("u_Monat")+"\"+getRecordHead("planid")+"_"+getRecordHead("measRun")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_Bemerkung")+"_"+getRecordHead("date")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_Schicht")+"_"+"_#_"+getRecordHead("u_bearbeitungsmaschine")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_pruefgrund")+"_Nr._"+getRecordHead("u_Auftragsnummer")+"\"+getRecordHead("planid")+"_"+getRecordHead("measRun")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_Bemerkung")+"_"+getRecordHead("time")+"_Teil_"+getRecordHead("u_Tischseite")+"_"+getRecordHead("u_Vorrichtungsnummer")+"_"+getRecordHead("partnbinc")+".zmp" **************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I have no problems with that, but i don't write whole path - only folder. Perhaps it can be related with network drives.

Yes, grouping works -> https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/26588-durchmeseser-zylinder-mit-h%C3%BCllbedingung-e/?do=findComment&comment=150482

Bei meinen Versuchen wurden nicht mal Ordner angelegt 🤔 Darum verwende ich die Einstellung auch nicht mehr. Abgesehen davon beißt sich diese Pfadeinstellung mit dem Pfad in der qdasconv.con. Ich sehe auch nirgends eine Doku, die erläutern würde, was Vorrang hat und wie das überhaupt zusammenspielt.

Hallo! Ist euch mal aufgefallen das wenn man die Qdas Datei über Calypso erstellen lässt und im Programm einen speziellen Pfad vorgegeben hat, das die erste Datei meistens nicht geschrieben wird sondern nur die Ordner angelegt werden. Erst die zweite Messung erzeugt dann die Qdas Datei.

On the other system whose name shall not be uttered, it's possible to preset a deflection in percent, so that you have full control about how deep the probe dips in. If I set it to 15 %, it will create a good spike on the edge but will under no circumstances damage the probe tip.

I just opened a ticket with Zeiss on this issue:

Last thing I'd like to say on this topic before I do some investigation on our parts....... The software should 100% allow the datum system to be created and report some type of measured value EVEN if it thinks the measured value is way wrong due to hard gaging theory. At least this way we get a 'measured value' that we can see and investigate....instead when we get this error the software reports ???????????. And let me further state that this shouldn't be on the customer to open an internet ticket to get resolved, this is a known issue as I have a 2 yr old ticket that has long been closed regarding this. I have so many tickets opened I've lost count, but I still feel the software is awesome and a remarkable piece of work.

let me add that the virtual pin that would be used to gage the thru hole would need not to be violated at 7.7 in diameter and related on center to Datum A....but considering Datum A can rattle around in its hard gage. These are the issue I will be carefully creating a video on. We have some extremely accurate CT scans of parts where all features are at nominal and there should be no virtual errors on feature callouts plus the datum MMR creation.

@Christoph Schult Let's spitball this for a second. Let's take the image above as an example. Datum A MMR is 35.1mm. So as long as that Datum Cylinder is machined below 35.1 at all cross sections(local size) there should be no violation bc you would be able to fit that datum Cylinder into a gauge machined at 35.1mm and rattle it around to help the cross thru hole positional check. Now let's assume that Datum A is LMR so its virtual size is 34.9mm. You cannot do gauging for LMR, but it is a legit usage of datum material requirments so you cannot build any type of gauge for this. I'm not sure how the software is going to behave with LMR, but I will try it out later when I have time. It may just not allow you to use it if the whole concept inside the software is hard guaging theory.

We cannot use MMR on datums due to this virtual condition being violated error. @Christoph Schult when I have time I will carefully go thru this error and send zeiss an email, b/c I understand what you are saying, but I don't think something is correct. Now, there is another real issue that needs to be fixed regarding MMR on datums in Zeiss Inspect and that is that all subsequent datums must have MMR used. Even if the last datum is a plane like you would place the part on a surface plate. You cannot have MMR on a surface plate.

Sorry Chris, I must have had a case of the Mondays. This setting is literally defined on the next tab under 'crowning' and can define the start/end high points for the desired range.

Somewhat, in the example shown its a refinement, the total deviation is allowed to be .015, but allowed to float within the .025 total band. In some other case dynamic profile will affect the shape of the tolerance zone, might be held narrower at the ends and allowed to be larger in the middle portion. I haven't done much with Dynamic Profile in Calypso, but will look into it. Possible that the function isn't currently available in Calypso 2025, but I'm not sure as i haven't checked.

I haven't been able to test this, but I was thinking that dynamic profile should be the difference between MAX and MIN from Profile bilateral two results.

Thank you all for the replies! I use a different software package from another CMM manufacturer. There these two evaluations are straightforward. Our supplier uses Calypso and tells us the missing sections make this impossible, which surprises me. Could someone confirm that grouping the circle paths into one feature allows both evaluations in Calypso? I'd be very grateful!

This isn't a bad idea. I will have to play with this. Zeiss should make this an option in Calypso. Dynamic profile was released in ASME 14.5 2018. So its fairly new. But I see a lot more designers getting interested in using dynamic profiles and I suspect we'll all be seeing this more often. Get ready folks.

- I believe that someone said that grouping the circle paths together (in the strategy window) will allow 2 point diameter evaluation (I have not tested it, myself) - manually changing from Minimum Zone to LSQ should be pretty straightforward

@Randawgg I think author knows how to measure that, but I think you can not use TP callout like Envelope to calculate min/max. And reporting just diameter is not the same like LP

Theoretically you can calculate an diameter and based on it's dimension you can set profile tolerance offset. Unless ZEISS will make this option inside Calypso.

You just need to make circle path segments at 30° angle range, then change the start angle for each section by 90°. There is a LOT of different ways to do this. A basic general gist in the image below.