All Activity

Thanks Rich, what exactly should I be editing in the inspset file? Should I just be removing the entire line or replacing what's in the ' ' with something else? If for some reason this doesn't work. Is there an easy way to "copy" the features of the program into a new one? Thanks.

You could do something like this using the spring locator pin with 2 dowels. This could either be printed or machined at low cost. spring locator pins can be purchased on mcmaster-carr.

Hallo Manuell, Flasche hatte ich noch nicht. Demletzt hatte ich ein rotationssymetrisches Bauteil mit Gewinde und die Ausrichtung zum 3D-Modell war nur bedingt möglich, weil das Ist-Gewinde nicht genug Ähnlichkeit mit dem Sollgewinde hatte. Falls das bei dir möglich ist, würde ich erstmal einen Flächenvergleich auf Ist erstellen. Min/Max Abweichungsfähnchen .... Hier sollte die Fehlstelle gut sichtbar sein. Du könntest auch eine Kurve auf der Helix anlegen und als Linienprofil auswerten.

A good method is using curve create a segment that goes up and down the helix. Then output profile plot or curve form plot. Eine bewährte Methode besteht darin, mithilfe einer Kurve ein Segment zu erstellen, das entlang der Helix verläuft, und anschließend ein Profil- oder Kurvenformdiagramm auszugeben.

Does your question regarding "Undercut" refer to a company standard or a competitor evaluation? I´m asking because acc. to my experience "Undercut" is not what you showed in your sketch on the upper left side. I mean undercut in root relief zone means no allowance of +material. So for this reason starting with GEAR PRO 2024 the characteristic ffamax was introduced: For a better explanation I did some comments in your report as follows: Cf (grenn) is clear, depending from the settings in the GEAR PRO tab you get different intersection points for evaluating the amount of root relief. ffaCf (blue) is the form only in the root relief zone, in your case between 2.5 and 5.8. ffamax (red) is the "Undercut" characteristic as I think you are interested in. The regression element from the main evaluation zone (crowning) is extended and parallel shifted to the max material intersection. The distance is the value for ffamax. (Accordingly there exists ffamin which you can use for min material issues). The only think which does not fit to your sketch is the red marked case as ffamax will detect this as NOT OK: I´m not sure if this explanation helps you but maybe as a start for an internal discussion? Does anyone in the forum has other ideas or interpretation of undercut?

Hi Leute! 👋 Hat von euch schon mal jemand eine Helixbahn am Flaschenhals gescannt, um eine lokale Rille/Fehlerstelle als Formplot auszugeben? Eine einfache Geradheit bringt hier ja verfälschte Ergebnisse. Über welches Element/welche Messstrategie wertet ihr sowas am liebsten aus? Bin für jeden Tipp dankbar! Beste Grüße Manuel

I saw that yesterday, just got busy.

Agree. Calypso 2025 has been a disaster, especially for off-line simulation. Both of mine are still working poorly. I even replaced one of the confusers with a new one to see if that would help.

Chad, can't get the pictures to show. Is there a different way to post them?

Thanks guys for the comments but regarding the precision of the CAA version anyone have idea what kind of precision i can have with the CAA version using a angle that is not one of the 12 calibrated angles regarding the standard method that angle is calibrated using the function calibrate passive stylus?

I'm just trying to say that you'll never report an accurate radius using less than 60 degrees. In the pictures below, math will never let you fit a circle to the orange lines that accurately describes the radius. Consider using a radius gage.

Goodmorning, Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck for a few weeks now.

@Chad Watton using profile is the same like using constrained radius.

Joe is correct, this isn't a measurement strategy issue, its a math issue. You can't get an accurate diameter on short radii. There's several good white papers online that describe how much uncertainty you accumulate as you make your radius smaller. My analogy is this is like trying to calculate the circumference of the Earth by going out and measuring your parking lot. Would it be acceptable to use profile instead? A profile would ensure your radius is in the correct location and is the correct size.

Hello, Are you reports saving on a network drive? The most common issue for a "freeze" or delay, is network instability. To test this, move your results to the local drive and test.

What are you trying to accomplish? Preventing programs from running with a probe sigma outside of your chosen tolerance?

Is it just me? Have not been able to log in in over a week. It just gets stuck in a refresh loop and still says im logged out. Can log into forums okay still of course.

hello, here is the result with wedges and mid planes both NOK

The math for radiuses can get very weird.... 60 degrees is well into the zone where it can be just impossible for it to calculate a sensible radius.

Yes, the large triangles will represent the surface deviation with lower resolution, while the surface area stays more or less the same. In the properties of the CAD or during import you can define the surface tolerance and max. edge length ZEISS Quality Tech Guide Alternatively, you might use a surface comparison on actual (on the mesh with higher resolution). The CAD should be refined anyways. Keep in mind that the integrated distance is an approximation of the volume, so maybe you want to analyse this with additional inspections. Maybe continuous curve distances using sections on CAD and mesh? ZEISS Quality Tech Guide

@Michael Krauskopf wow... I tried so many combination and this obvious one I missed.. well.. thank you @Joseph Giacona unfortunately it won't prevent the scenario where your probe's sigma is beyond 0.01 (default setting in "Limit values for CNC qualification" unless you've changed it). In that case your data won't update and your PCM will compute it as "successful" qualification

Then you should use a wedge inside the software (instead of using two parallel planes): 1) Create two planes according to your technical drawing 2) Create a wedge from these planes (Construct->Wedge->2 Plane Wedge) 3) Apply Measuring Principle Fitting Element on the Planes 4)Apply Measuring Principle Referenced Construction on the wedge Now you are ready to use the wedge inside the datum system dialog.

After the program is successfully finished the last probe freezes for long time away from part and does not move. If left untouched it takes its own time to finish calculating everything and the probe starts moving again back to clearance zone and then report is generated. It was only on certain operations but now same issue with almost every program causing delays. Is the problem with Calypso or is it CMM machine problem? How do I fix this? Thanks in Advance.

I have done some test and I just cannot seem to get this to work. It is not calculating the radius correctly. I have plotted the actual points in a cad software and it matches what was checked by hand.

Hello, how are you? Now my login works, but it seems that I am not able to open de software with trial. Why this happens? How do I fix it? I would like to try the trial of the software. When I try to execute the .exe file it appears like this: Thank you