All Activity

HI Tom or any Zeiss Expert, how can I start to measure the outside contour of the blades? With in respect to how curve and freeform is created? Also if I can request a distace check of the Radius in a linear distance? If you guys can help me that would be great? Can you email me for this topic at anhtuansj1269@gmail.com? Greatly appreciated in advance.....

Didn't expect to log into the forums and see some mouth wounds, lol. Interesting what Zeiss Inspect is being used for, I'm in my own little bubble measuring titanium parts.

Don't use Polar Pattern Offset but use Rotational Pattern [use for scallop]. The Rotational Pattern will update the strategy for each hole.

I guess it could depend what other information you might want. In some cases, it might be impossible to capture the points you want without capturing points you don't want. For example, in my original screenshot, there are two cones, one on each side of the torus at the lower right. You wouldn't be able to capture one cone without getting some of the other.

@Richard Shomaker Using point numbers was much better. Either way, you still need to change which feature you're collecting points from, but remember point numbers is definitely easier to do. Thanks Richard.

Could someone please explain to me how to adjust the strategy for this patterned bolt circle? I need to evaluate as a best-fit and I can't remember how to set-up the strategy properly. Datum A = Front Face Datum B = CL Normal to +Y Datum C= Bottom Plane I searched the forum for a similar scenario, but could only find examples showing how to skip over one of the circles in a pattern, or irregular bolt patterns... Any help is greatly appreciated! TIA!

@andrea ricciotti This is a different approach. Go to Construct>Surface>Smoothed Surface from Mesh then use the "Select/Deselect On Surface" tool to lasso the area of interest. Go to the I-Inspect and check "Area". This should give you what you need.

So, they are RTAB's, Which i know you have to raise to do manual measurements and lower when you want to mount items. I will definitely go look at that manual. How they currently establish the "A Start RT" is they have a program to take a circle in the ID of the RT and a point on top of it. That becomes their base alignment that they then recall in every other program. I guess from what i understand, this came from them using their base alignment of "A Start" which was before they had the RT. This alignment was based on a threaded hole in the table, which i do not understand their reasoning on this. None of the parts are cylindrical but they have bores in all different angles and locations based on different datums. I guess i am trying to figure out if they can be aligned from the part, which can then be comped by the RT to square it up and run the rest of the program. I was told he tried to do this but it messed everything up so he went back to the way it was always done. I am guessing the settings were not correct for what he was doing. I have been finding a lot of that in just the items not related to the RT so far. Again, I apologize for the vagueness of the question. I am trying to understand what they are doing and what I can do to make this better and try to learn the RT at the same time.

There's not much to go on here, but I/we can point you in the right direction to get started. Start by reading the Calypso manual chapter 14, it covers the rotary tables. Are you using the RT01 or the RTAB? The RTAB(air bearing) has a few extra things you need to know about raising and lowering. You'll need to understand how to make the rotary table alignments. You'll need to decide if you want to set the RT alignment using the sphere method or taken off the part. This is in the RT menu, you either load in the axis you created or select "measure axis". If you need to learn how to make an axis off the part, as again on here, there's several things you need to do to get it right. A rule of thumb, if you're part is tall and cylindrical, its best to take it off the part. But I could argue all day about advantages and disadvantages of both methods. It sounds like you also need to understand the "Pre-alignment at CNC start" menu. This controls how the RT behaves at the start of the program. You can have it home to zero at the start of the program, or have the rotary table rotate based on the base alignment. I've added some pre-alignments to help find parts on the rotary table (especially on parts that are not rotationally symmetrical), but it sounds like you guys are really fighting it. Pick a more specific question with some screen shots and we can really get you dialed in.

The Base alignment recalls the RT alignment and they start from there. So, for example, Base Align - Recall "A Start RT" Which then leads to this on the Characteristics

You lost me at "They program from a zero of the RT" 😅

Ever find the solution to this?

I have started a new position in a new company and they use rotary tables and I have never programmed this way before. Is there somewhere i can find a resource that can give me the basics and proper ways? I am understanding what they are doing but at the same time I don't. They program from a zero of the RT and then find the part and then align the part. I was told by the guy who was retiring that he was told they program wrong but "that's how it's always been done" There are a couple programs that they have a squareness check and it will cancel the program if the part is not square enough to XY. Isn't that something that can be utilized with the rotary table? Also with how they are doing the alignments, they are doing the find, then do a rough align with minimal points, then a 2nd alignment with more points for each feature, then a third alignment scanning most of the features for alignment. They don't have fixtures for any of the parts so the parts are never fully in the same location. I am thinking a start alignment manually would eliminate the "find" part of the program and then we can set the base alignment and loop it with the delta kickout set within the alignment loop and i feel this would be quicker that the way they are doing it. BUT, because they program from the rotary table I don't know how big of a change this will end up being. I could be completely off since i have never used a rotary table before. It just seems like a lot of extra time that could be utilized in other ways. I thank you all for your thoughts, direction, and comments in advance. I want to learn the proper way to do this and not the "this is how it has always been" way. Have been searching the forums for info but seems like there is mostly just issue posts or tips and not a link to a guide anywhere.

I've not tried but there is addon for unbending. What do you want to achieve?

Thanks guys. That worked beautifully.

Yeah, wherever you have this saved, the file path is longer than 260 characters so Windows can't extract it properly. I usually make a folder at the drive root when I need to get new Calypso versions, something like C:\temp and move the zip there before extracting.

Make sure you aren't just clicking on the zip archive and hitting extract because it will be a folder inside of a folder which is the biggest issue with this.

I did a brief search and didn't see this issue, so forgive me if it was already covered. I downloaded the newest version of Calypso from the portal. when extracting it gives me the following error. Is this something I can skip?

Hello everyone! Andrea from Italy here, currently going a bit crazy trying to measure the area of a mesh I’ll give you some context: I’m working on a scientific study on oral wound healing. We use an intraoral scanner to compare two different surgical techniques, evaluating how quickly the wound closes over time. The workflow is: scan patients at different postoperative time points, identify the wound area on each scan, measure the area and track how it changes over time The scanner exports STL, PLY and OBJ files. I usually work with PLY because the color information helps me better identify the margins. However, I’ve tried all three formats and the issue persists, so I don’t think the file type is the problem. What i'm doing: Import the mesh into Zeiss Inspect Draw a closed curve around the wound area on the mesh Try to calculate the area inside that curve The Problem: I cannot find any tool that lets me measure the surface area enclosed by the curve. The curve is definitely closed, the mesh should be closed as well (no visible holes), I’ve looked through the available measurement tools but can’t find a way to compute the area within the boundary. As a comparison, I tried the same workflow in MeshLab, and it works there without issues. I'll add a screenshot of what i've to measure, i can provide you more screenshots etc etc.... I’d really prefer to stay in Zeiss Inspect since I’m already using it for additional 3D and vertical analyses, and it would be ideal to keep everything in one software. Is there a way in Zeiss Inspect to calculate the area enclosed by a curve drawn on a mesh? Am I missing a specific function or workflow? Thanks in advance to anyone who can point me in the right direction, i'm sure i'm missing some stupid passages....

No. I will try it and see how it goes. Thank you.

Hallo everyone, I have a curved curve (see picture) that was generated on a scanned surface. It does not have a simple geometric shape, i.e. it is neither circular nor elliptical. We are looking for a way to transform or "unroll" (unwinde) this curve so that it is straight in the Z direction. The geometric lengths should be retained, i.e. there should be no projection, but an unwinding that is true to the length. Ideally, I would like a solution that can be implemented as a Python programme. Best regards, Jure Baloh

Vielen Dank für die Hilfe. Ich frage mich trotzdem, warum man sich die Tastereinmessung so aufwendig selbst zusammenbauen muss. Ehrlich gesagt verstehe ich nicht so ganz, warum das nicht direkt in PiWeb integriert ist.

Had similar issue, do not know if this will work in your case or not, but i solved mine by using different alignments, rotating to the same position. Now I have the same view for multiple locations.

As Martin alluded to, the cartesian distance measures the straight-line distance between two features, with the first acting as the origin, and the second defining the orientation/direction. So, results may be dependant on how they are entered. Typically, you would want to use the largest feature in the second selection... I find it to be counterintuitive and tend to use Perpendicular Distance, Symmetry Plane, or Caliper Distance for most evaluations.

Any reason to not use point numbers instead?