All Activity

Hi, Instead of automatically generating the PDF document after the CNC process, you could use the AcceptProtocol. You could assign an additional action to the existing “Block Measurement” button to export the PDF file with the desired filename.

Nach Rücksprache mit dem zuständigen Kollegen für PMI aus der Anwendungstechnik ist PMI definitiv kostenlos, lediglich für die native CAD Schnittstelle (außer .Sab/.Sat) muss bezahlt werden:

I am evaluating internal gap using a surface comparison in ZEISS INSPECT/GOM. For a virtually fitted implant component (local best fit with tolerance/outside target element), practically all valid deviations are positive because penetration is prevented by the alignment. Therefore, I expected the software-reported signed mean distance to be approximately equal to: Integrated signed distance / Area of valid distance and also approximately equal to: Integrated absolute distance / Area of valid distance However, in one example I obtained: Mean distance: 0.0858 mm Integrated distance: 31.1040 mm³ Integrated absolute distance: 31.1040 mm³ Area of valid distance: 175.5282 mm² Thus: 31.1040 / 175.5282 = 0.1772 mm which is about twice the reported mean distance, despite the absence of relevant negative deviations. Could ZEISS please clarify the exact calculation of the following surface-comparison statistics? Is Mean distance calculated as an unweighted average of geometry inspection values, mesh vertices, CAD vertices, or another set of evaluation points? Are individual values weighted by the associated triangle or surface area? How is Distance standard deviation calculated, and does it use the same weighting as Mean distance? Is avg(inspection.value, index='geometry') mathematically identical to the Mean distance shown in the properties? Is there a built-in method to calculate a genuinely surface-area-weighted mean and standard deviation? Does the tessellation density or triangle-size distribution of the nominal CAD influence Mean distance and standard deviation? My aim is to report the physical mean internal gap over the complete valid surface. At present, I calculate this as integrated distance divided by valid area, but I would like to understand precisely how this differs from the built-in statistics.

@Jochen Heller Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite address my situation. I actually have a copy of ASME Y14.5-2018 and it doesn't cover my specific situation either. I think the engineer that marked up the drawing might be taking some liberties with the interpretation of the standard.

Sort of! It has to be a separate stylus system. You will have to manually reassign which probe is in your probe holder, the regular or the CAA probe, to switch between the two. But there is no problem having both set up and qualified.

Hi Travis, GOM Inspect cannot be used to measure with the Comet, but you could import the mesh into Inspect to keep evaluating with Inspect. Measuring is done in "Colin 3D" apparently with the Comet. What ATOS sensor are you currently using? Nanno

Hello Fellow Calypso Users I dug into this more and here’s what I found. When you fire up Calypso, login and launch the program from AutoRun, the failure (live image on and off) always occurs. It will continue to fail, unless you go into Calypso desktop, run it from there (always successfully), come back into AutoRun where it will also run successfully from that point forward. So the initial launch of the program from AutoRun appears to be the culprit. Unfortunately this is how operators/technicians will run the program; I do not give them access to Calypso desktop. FYI, completely shutting down and firing-up the PC and the CMM did nothing to change the outcome. I even added a tactile point measurement on the cylindrical portion of the micro-Vblock that proceeds the manual optical measurement point (red crosshairs) hoping that starting the program with the tactile sensor prior to engaging the optical sensor might fix things, but to no avail. I look forward to your thoughts and insights. Thank you Mike Roterdam Senior Metrology Engineer

Hello, maybe you find what you need here:

This is the first time I've seen a dynamic profile this and need a little help with setting this up in Calypso 2023. This a marked up drawing so excuse the lack of exactness on the profile callout. I think I'm all set with the upper tier but not sure about the lower tier, especially with the unequal distribution. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

this is here because there is no "delete post" option.

@Derek Jester Thank you for the detailed info above. To be honest, I thought you meant you had a more accurate method for qualifying the CAA version. My bad.

Ich klär es mal eben mit der Anwendungstechnik, nicht das meine Info falsch ist 🙂

wusste garnicht das man man für PMI nicht bezahlen muss. Meines Wissens, muss man für PMI bezahlen.

If "better" means more repeatable, then that would be atrue statement... but to evaluate to a standard, then Cylinder with Outer Tangential would be "correct"; however, I believe that using LSQ for the Cylinder (or using a 3D Line) would be acceptable for the purposes of an R&R study.

With my sim it's either: 1) I'm unable to rotate the model to see what's going on while it's running. 2) Runs at a million mph even on the slowest setting. 3) Won't run when the model is in a partial transparency - Changes the model back to solid.

Hi Johnny, PMI is included within CALYPSO, it doesn't require an additional license. But please see the Release Info for CAD/PMI compatibility: Best Regards Marcel

Yes in ISO you have the ISO 5459 that establish in other stuff DATUM and the evaluation for datum is like ASME outer tangengial. not LSQ.

Thanks for your help, @Richard Stanich Do you know if I need to create another stylus profile with a different name to enable CAA, or can I use a hybrid setup? In other words, can I use CAA while keeping the standard calibration for a passive stylus?

Hi Henrik, the CAD which GEAR PRO creates is not a true model. Especially in case of modifications like reliefs or crowning the CAD will not include this. To sum it up, CAD is mainly used for vizualization and simulation. Side info, the evaluation is not based on CAD but on the true involute mathematical model.

@David Gafner in both

ASME or ISO?

@RPSmetrologyTech I'm just saying how is this cylinder treated as a datum in any callout. This datum looks like 1:1 ratio

@Sven Radtke is correct. The global settings option has been a nice addition; it removes the risk of forgetting to turn it on and losing measurement points. Also, for older systems, for an infinite number of measurement points, you can enter "0" for the measuring point limit

So what you're saying is, per print, Datum -A- should be a cylinder with OT eval instead, not LSQ eval for the runout callout? I assumed short cylinders would be better evaluated as 3d lines.

I'm using something similar for deep things - 14mm probe with 11mm extensions as long as I need. Didn't really have issues, but I haven't measured at over 300mm length.