All Activity

Hi everyone, Just adding a short follow-up after some additional thought about this use case. For manual ATOS Q setups, especially when changing lenses frequently, an optional audio indication during calibration could reduce the need to constantly shift attention between the scanner, the calibration board, and the software screen. I would be interested to know whether other users working manually see the same value in this kind of feature, and whether there is an official ZEISS channel for submitting software usability suggestions or feature requests. Thank you.

Hallo Ihr Zwei, gibt es hierfür auch die Möglichkeit das Maschinenübergreifend auf Laufwerke zu legen oder am Besten direkt im Ordner vom Prüfplan ?. Habe bei uns im Werk über 10 Messmaschinen und sobald wir Werte nachträglich laden müssen müssen wir das an der jeweiligen KMG Maschine machen.

The alignment does not change the flatness. But you should consider, that if you use filtering and outlier removal, that there might be a number of points for your plane that borders on "filtering works" or "filtering doesn't work". Sometimes the filtering breaks down if there aren't enough points for the filter to work. And since the filtering parameters can change from element to element and characteristic to characteristic, it might be worth to check every element and characteristic for the right parameters, and also check the default protocol for information about the filtering (it tells you when the filter doesn't work).

Thanks

Can I create a drop-down list that I can use to filter by Part. I don't want users to use filters

Can I create a drop-down list that I can use to filter by Part. I don't want users to use filters.

Hi, i am looking for a way how to obtain circles from 2D curve which was measured as 16 rotary divisions. I wanted to quickly scan a groove, then later obtain dimensions. For width i was able to just intersect curve with a theoretical plane and report 2 point distance - which worked on division without problems. For circles i have no luck. No PCM available - any hints? Thanks

Danke Jens, das werde ich mal ausprobieren! (Nachtrag: Klappt!) Allerdings habe ich zusätzlich auch noch Punktemengen auf Kurven definiert. Gibt es da auch eine Möglichkeit? Ich kann jetzt kein Bild posten, aber stell dir vor, du würdest um die Querbohrungen in deinem Bild noch kreisförmig angeordnete Punktemengen legen, die mit ausgewertet werden sollen. Ich habe bis jetzt auch einfach das Hüllelement ausgewertet, aber ich kenne es halt von GOM, daß hier ein Min- und ein Max-Wert ausgegeben wird. Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, wird einmal das Hüllelement berechnet und zusätzlich das kleinste Zweipunktmaß. Das würde ich gern nachstellen, um möglichst dieselben Werte zu bekommen. Sonst tauchen immer unangenehme Fragen nach den Unterschieden auf...

I dont know how to define a "near miss" but if its about tracking the collisions, where they happend and with which speed, i would recommend the Smart Service Dashboard As far as i know there is even a free version with less functions but in the Full version you can track running times, the parts which are currently running etc. It give you a total overview and statistics. Even for Maintenance:

Hallo Norbert, du kannst die Winkelsegmente, welche auf einer Ebene liegen, in der Elementstrategie gruppieren - solange du einige gegenüberliegende Punkte auf jeder Ebene hast, funktioniert das mit der Zweipunktauswertung.

Hallo Nicolaj, nur Mut, eine Menge Highlights die seit 2018 dazugekommen sind. GEAR PRO 2018 (6.0) war die letzte Windows 7 kompatible Version. Danach ging es bis zur Version GEAR PRO 2025 (7.4) die mit Windows 10 kompatibel war. Seit GEAR PRO 2024 (7.2) ist Windows 11 unterstützt. Ebenfalls seit 7.2 möglich ist eine Parallelinstallation von mehreren GEAR PRO Versionen auf einem Rechner. Am Ende entscheidet dein aktuelles Betriebssystem ob du überhaupt auf die aktuellste Version updaten kannst.

I have to wonder if the new VP understands what a CMM crash is. Like Thomas said the language "near miss" typically applies to safety and OSHA-type incidents in my experience but I suppose he may be wanting to have some kind of metric for CMM crashes to see how often they happen and how often they may result in needing to switch probes/heads/etc.? More from a cost and efficiency standpoint? I feel like that would be very little value added though with potentially a lot of work and monitoring.

If evaluating flatness is the primary goal, I would stick with using the plane as the spatial axis and a single circle path as the origin. The 3d line looks to be introducing error in the measurement by skewing the axis ever so slightly, thus placing your planar scan path in a slightly different position than the original alignment. To test this, would you be able to add a few more scan paths on your plane at different diameters? Maybe one smaller and one larger than your original path? It would be helpful to see the form of the plane over as much as the surface as you can. Ensure the proper filters/outliers and eval method (min. feature) as usual and adjust your speeds accordingly. From there, if still curious, measure the larger plane again against the 3d line alignment and check the flatness plots. How do they compare? Are the highs and lows in relatively the same locations? Are they the same magnitude?

What, like as a safety metric? My employer has had multiple EH&S managers over the years and none of them have ever so much as suggested it. This seems a lot like "look at all the problems my new reporting scheme found" numbers padding. I mean I'll say that there are a few scenarios that might qualify, like if you had an Accura with that speed package that mandated a light curtain, but ALL redlights is going to encompass a huge number of measurement faults that have no safety implications whatsoever.

I heard through the grapevine that our newly hired VP of operations (I believe) wants to make every "crash' or "red light" while running a CMM a near miss. I have not been told this directly, but not sure how or who is going to report these. We run pretty smooth on all our CMM's. We have some old Sheffield CMM's. One of them check raw castings which can be very imperfect and have excess material in placees. I'd like to know if anyone else has ran across this. I have yet to meet this gentleman and really don't know what he is trying to accomplish by calling CMM crashes as near misses.

I think I did what you asked. The form changes. The bore is NOT very perpendicular to the face, this is the very issue I have been trying to help them solve, there is absolutely face runout on this face when compared to the bore, which is translating into the gear when it gets ground, because they are colleting on a small section of the bore, and resting on the ground face. I know the bore and face not being very perp to each other is an issue, but the parts are already done, I am simply trying to help them understand what has happened. As far as scanning a different area, its the same 2.000" Ø circle path, centered on the alignment/bore. And the 2 circle paths for the circles in the bore, are both 500 points, start angle of 0°, then I have it set to start at 120° and scan for 300°. Basically I only scan CCW from 11:00 to 1:00, and I simply place the part of the stage with the keyway aligned at 12:00. I have to use a 3.0 mm long probe to take the 3d line, otherwise I'll risk shafting out. And the keyway is very thin and shallow, so I simply am ignoring it and programming around it, rather than using it for a Planar rotation and I would normally do to give a fullly defined alignment.

Can you make a secondary alignment that is either the 3d line or plane (whichever one is not the current base alignment) and set your feature to it and see if the form changes? It shouldn't. If it doesn't I would see how perpendicular your 3d line is to plane1. I suspect you scanned a different area, maybe you got closer to the keyway, and that's why your number changed. I would also look at the actual points and see where your min and max points are moving to based on the alignment, maybe that will clue you in to what is happening.

Ground surface and ground bore (see picture) about 1 tenth. It is small, no denying that. It is taken with a circle path on a 2.000" Ø I don't understand what you are saying, sorry. I included a screenshot of the feature plane1 window. ELI5, Feel free to RESPECTFULLY talk down to me, if that makes sense. No, as I mentioned before, I have 1 plane and either 1 circle or 2 circles to create a 3d line., check the screenshots I previously posted to see for yourself. This is a very simple basic program that I threw together to simply check a ground surface flatness. This isn't even a print requirement, just me trying to help the shop troubleshoot some issues.

If you're manually probing your features are you cleaning up the nominals/vectors of all the features? The software should be creating the planar tolerance zone relative to the feature alignment & feature nominals related to that alignment. Flatness should be best fitting the tolerance zone. Are you measuring the plane as a separate feature not included in your Base Alignment?

I can't replicate this no matter what I do on my offline seat. This tells me its unlikely its the alignment per say (more on this in a minute). I don't think your theory about the machine tilt is what's causing it either. But here's my theory: Since changing your spatial datum in the base alignment is clearly causing a repeatable difference, it's possible you are seeing some sort of probe radius correction error. Is this a rough part, like a casting or plastic? What kind of difference do you see between using filters vs no filters? I'm just pontificating here, but maybe Plane 1 is too small to establish a reliable spatial datum; maybe that's why you get better results when you use the larger 3d line in the base alignment. Anyone else got any ideas?

I have not noticed this before. 😁 In fact, I didn't even notice there was a NVIDIA update.

Thinking about this some more, I think I may know what's going on, and I guess it does make sense, hopefully someone can confirm what I am thinking is true. The Flatness measurement still needs a perfect form or median value to evaluate from, and when I give the program a 3d line for the rotation in space, it places the plane1 at 90° to the 3d line. But when I use the Plane1 as my rotation is space, it is probably comparing that plane to the perfect form or median plane that would be created by the machine itself. So, my CMM stage has some tilt to it, and that is what I am picking up. Would that be correct?

Hallo zusammen, aktuell arbeiten wir noch mit Gear Pro 6.0.4.16 aber wollen jetzt updaten, da wir immer mal wieder kleine Schwierigkeiten haben. Man hat mir jedoch gesagt, dass das etwas anders ist als mit Calypso. Bei Calypso kann man ja die neue Version installieren und die alte läuft zur Not trotzdem noch. Bei Gear Pro würde das anscheinend nicht so sein. Da wir aber nur eine Maschine haben auf der Gear Pro läuft, habe ich etwas bedenken... Jetzt meine Frage: Hattet ihr mal Probleme nach einem Update und hatte jemand einen ähnlich großen Sprung was die Versionen angeht? Danke euch vorab!

In this case, I usually evaluate Outer Tangential for Envelope condition (fit/function); as well as Inner Tangential (as reference),to ensure that all points fall within specification.

I'm using a different part today, so the results will vary. Using the bad alignment of Plane1 & Circle1 as pictured before, I take 4 points to grab the plane, then 4 points in the bore for Circle1. Start CNC, then a 1250 point Plane1 is scanned, then a 500 point circle (semi-circle technically to avoid a keyway) is taken. Flatness result is .00198" I change the alignment to 3d line1 & Plane1, take my 4 point Plane1, then a 4 point Circle1, then a 4 point Circle2 over 2.5" deeper into the bore. Start CNC, 1250 point Plane1 is scanned, then the 500 point Circle1, then another 500 point Circle2. Flatness result is .00066". Since you asked for it, I now switched BACK to the bad alignment of Plane1 & Circle1, 4 points, 4 points, CNC, result is .00199" At no point during this has the part been moved, but if I chose to 'clear existing results' and keep current alignment, it will rescan the Plane1 and only Plane1, and the results do not change since it does not retake the new alignment. I hope I explained that clearly enough.