All Activity

The code "if "Plane3"=true" was just pseudo text to imply what I am looking to achieve.

Hi Daniel, Hi Ünal, Thank you so much! We very rarely require maximum material conditions. And yes, it is ISO. We still use CALYPSO 7.4.24, so the evaluation according to the centre line must be used for cylinders in order to be ISO-compliant. The default is ASME, for whatever reason... 🙂 Thank you very much for your efforts! Only a example to show ISO versus ASME...

We've recently upgraded from our aging GOM triple scan to a shiny new Zeiss ScanCobot and have some teething issues in regards to getting our old workflow to work with the new software/hardware Previously we would create a Measurement Template Project, then drop the individual scans into it as separate stages in order to output all the reports on a single PDF, pretty standard stuff I imagine. Using the new Cobot however, we'd like to optimize this process by being able to scan the parts in using the measurement routine, processing them inside the same project, and saving them as individual stages so we can run another scan session inside the same project. Is this possible?

Hallo Nanno, funktioniert. Danke! Ich war dem schon auf der Spur, aber hatte erst das Problem, dass das ganze Netz ausgewertet wurde. Jetzt klappt es 🙂 Gruß Hendrik

You will form a cylinder from two circles with a diameter of Ø10.65. (The coaxiality tolerance will come from the maximum material condition.) Because it is Cz, you must obtain a cylinder from this. Since it will be a cylinder measurement, this must be coaxiality. If you keep the diameter tolerance at a minimum level, the tolerance it will give you will be larger.

Hallo, im "neuen" (wurde Standard mit Inspect 2019) Workflow mit Bauteilen (Screenshot unten) kann man die Flächen in der Ansicht im Screenshot per Drag and Drop in ein neues Bauteil verschieben. Diese lassen sich dann im Flächenvergleich usw. auswählen. Nanno

When you're working with ASME, it depends: in the newest standard, there is no more concentricity. The symbol has been eradicated altogether and has been substituted with the position symbol. So this could be an older ASME standard, but there is no Maximum Material Condition for concentricity AFAIK, so here, you're obviously working in ISO (it's "2x" in ISO, and "2X" in ASME). In ISO, it's always coaxiality, and in this case it's the coaxiality of the Maximum Material Boundary of the common axis Ø10.65. The diameter of the Maximum Material Boundary is Ø10.65 +0.05 = 10.70 mm, and that means the minimum circumscribed cylinder (over all segments) must not violate the Maximum Material Boundary at the nominal position of datum A-A|B. For the manufacturing process it means, that the diameter should be made preferably at the lower end of the tolerance. If your Ø10.65 is made 10.60 at perfect form, your coaxiality tolerance will be 0.01.

there is a characteristic copable of calculating the concentricity between the centre of holes and a cylinder reference?

Hello colleagues, I have a drawing with zero tolerance for coaxiality but a maximum material condition. How should this drawing be interpreted and how can it be implemented in CALYSO? And again and again the question of whether it is coaxiality or concentricity... Best Regards Karsten

Well, Windows on a VM is still Windows. So you haven't gained anything... I'd rather have an extra PC with M$ than a complex LINUX/VM/M$ setup. Zeiss can't even manage to bring the Windows version up to date, so UNIX/LINUX will probably remain a pipe dream.

Can you elaborate on how that was done?

I'm experiencing similar problems, but I've stopped worrying about it. I work as a quality control and project quality manager. I sometimes report to the quality manager, but since she lacks technical knowledge, she's only interested in whether the results are satisfactory. We often discuss report details and technical information with the production and project teams. CMMs work for the quality department, but they actually serve the production and project departments. We work with the project team on new products. I adjust the CMM programs according to the production workflow. The quality manager doesn't deal with these things; she only checks whether the work is finished. Everything purchased for quality is very expensive because it doesn't generate profit. Bosses don't like spending money on the quality department. We have many machines for production that cost £500,000. When a new CNC is needed, it's ordered without hesitation. But when you want a new CMM due to capacity limitations, it's too expensive for them.

Regarding the need to activate: Each plate (and by the way many other electornic components of the CMM) has an ID chip under the black area, and the ID of that chip must be registered (activated) correctly in the controller. Depending on your firmware version and the manufacturing date of the plate the IDs might already be activated - or not. If not, there's a tool named Device Activator that you can download from the portal or the link given, which performs the activation.

I would like it to ignore the given value if it does not meet the specified condition.

Hallo zusammen, ich habe eine Inspect-Datei in der ich zwei CAD´s zur Auswertung mit einem Netz nutzen möchte. In Gom 2019 hatte ich z.B. bei einem Flächenvergleich die Möglichkeit auszuwählen welches CAD ich zur Auswertung nutzen möchte. Da wurden die CAD´s auch als Baum aufgeführt. In 2022 komme ich nur über die Eigenschaften zu beiden CAD´s. Ein Ausblenden hilft da nicht. Bei der Auswertung werden beide CAD´s genutzt. Der Fall kommt nicht oft vor, aber jetzt muss ich wieder gegen zwei CAD´s auswerten. Habe ich diese Möglichkeit bei 2022 nicht mehr? Falls doch, wo stelle ich um, dass ich wieder auf das jeweilige CAD wechseln kann. bzw. wo stelle ich wieder die Baumansicht her? Oder ist diese Option nicht mehr verfügbar? Danke schonmal. Gruß H. Schramm

I'm using quite a number of different probe systems. If I did a complete re-qualification every day, I wouldn't do much else. So, I have to be smart about it. I want to make sure of two things: The probe systems measures the correct diameter. Instead of a whole calibration routine, I run a small routine that measures the reference sphere. That way I can make sure the measured diameter is within limits. If I use multiple probes in one program, I re-calibrate those (and only those) ahead of my first run of the day. Usually, I check the probes more often than I calibrate them. It's faster and gives you a feeling of security, because I had calibrations that I had to repeat, because the positions among the probe systems were not satisfyingly precise.

That is easy to do, but you did not define what you want the output to be if the condition is not met? Define what should happen in all possible conditions.

I would calibrate right after crash just that probe system and then regularly, depending on your usage. You can get into situation, where you have a collision which is not a collision, just a probe which ran into a void. There is no need to do such calibration after drives are off - they can shut down to conserve air consumption every 15 minutes of inactivity - that would be hilarious to do calibration in this case. I am running calibration program, which measure before calibration and then after calibration - this can tell you if you have a problem with specific probe ( lose screw and so on )

Accura and Accura2, VAST Gold in each My company requires qualification of all styli after drives off, whether it happened due to a collision or a holiday weekend shutdown. I've felt for a long time that this is unnecessary, particularly in the intentional shutdown scenario. What would change about a stylus or a stylus system (relative to the Master Stylus) during a shutdown? I've got a couple machines; each has a rack with 21 systems. They're all very different from one another, meaning I need to use 3 different sphere sizes in a total of 7 positions. A full qualification of both machines takes just under 3 hours. This past holiday the pain of lost hours was great enough I think I'm poised to make a change here. I'd happily verify a couple and get back to work in 15 minutes if there were no findings. Google's AI bot says there's no reason. I believe him, but I don't trust him 😉 What do you guys think?

4 sigma will likely attenuate the same number of points as turning off the elimination, give or take one point in 20,000.

Oh man. Richard just increased my job satisfaction by 35.5% with this tip 😄

Your "current" is TL3 and your new one is TL1 Your head seems to accept tl2,3,4

I bought 3 new plates at the end of 2025, snuck them in with some leftover budget. Put one together today and it wont click into place on the head There are 2 little balls on the base plate that need to lock in to the head, but the ones i bought are in the wrong location. the head has 3 "holes" but 1 is filled in with what looks like epoxy. Can i press out the ball from its current location and move it over to the spot that it needs to be in? Additionally, there is a sticker in the box that says the base needs to be Activated, is that a new thing? My CMM computer is not connected to the network, so there is no internet on this machine.

Thank you very much for the PDF file, Martin. The methods in this file are exactly what I frequently use now, but they are too cumbersome. That's why I asked if it's possible to use approach/retract like in PC-DMIS, because this feature in PC-DMIS is extremely practical. However, CALYPSO 2023 does not seem to have this feature (sub-safe planes still require resetting between different elements, which significantly increases my programming time). Just like in PC-DMIS, many features have been updated and are very useful. For example: Arrays are easier to use than in CALYPSO. Safe planes can be deleted. Finding the nearest CAD element is convenient. The start and end points of circular path scanning are very user-friendly, whereas CALYPSO always feels rigid and not flexible enough to drag. PC-DMIS's text programming mode interface clearly displays detailed data, making it easy to modify. These are my observations after using both software packages. I am not criticizing either one; each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I simply hope they can learn from each other and update these features.

很感谢你的PDF文件.马丁.这个文件里面的方法正是我目前经常用到的.太繁琐.所以才询问大家能不能像PC-DMIS那样利用逼近回退.因为PC-DMIS这个功能太实用了.反而CALYPSO 2023里面并未有这个功能.（子安全平面.在不同元素之间还要重新设置.这样会加大我编程时间.）就像PC-DMIS里面有很多功能更新的很多「列如：1.阵列比CALYPSO好用2.安全平面可以删除3.查找最近CAD元素4.圆路径扫描的起始和结束很好用.CALYPSO总是拖不动不过灵活5.PC-DMIS文本编程模式页面可以很清晰看到详细数据方便更改.」这是我用过款软件总结出来的！我并不是批判任意一个软件.各有各的优点和缺点.只希望可以相互借鉴并更新这些功能！