All Activity

Well nothing is changing - only nominal representation. So you only link deviation in Z against nominal point and measured point. Unless you want to keep some numbers, then point in new alignment is the easiest and the most predictable. Of course you can move origin in new alignment to keep your old nominal value and still keep that correction in needed axis.

@Tom Oakes Yes, you are correct. The GBF does not move the origin where as a new alignment would change the nominal origin.

@Richard Shomaker But doesn't setting that point as Z origin establish a new z origin, which would offset the curve the difference between the BA and the 2nd alignment? Where the geometry best fit should report the difference between where the point's z nominal and actual.

I am curious how you want to measure this, but your only option here is either make many lines and do tangential feature ( radius between lines ) or curves. Then form a plane from each circle's center. But still it should be tangential element - in this case vector of that plane should be outwards from material.

In Autorun: Tools --> Always leave the CAD window open

As Isagani mentioned, from the ZEISS Portal KB - CALYPSO: How to Add Set-Up Information to a Measurement Plan

Yeah, I think the base alignment match needs to be replaced by a better process, or as you suggested provide more visibility to how it is matching. Polyworks has a one of the more effective processes I've seen for matching point cloud meshes.

Thanks, I have another question, here I should use inner tangential for A-A?

Please vote this up on My Voice ! Thank you .. https://portal.zeiss.com/my-voice/software/metrology/product/066cc67a-e50f-470f-9884-a3ec3253c37c/request/da8f3e7d-9743-4ac8-9bc2-02c9ac0f693f I've recently had to use Base Alignment Match, wow what a mess. There is not much info on what is going on for the 3d best fit. I know it is suggested to use circles, but I had a long part that did not have these. After much research I think I understand it, however it appears it requires any single points to be measured in the exact same location on the part. Also there is little information on when you select the features what they may be constraining, also the delta value is not incredibly helpful, what would be nice is an XYZ and uvw after the match. Also I think its possible to copy the cad and make it transparent /ghost to show how the algorithm is fitting in real time, like other software where for example you are fitting a point cloud mesh to the CAD, etc.

Can you post a sketch of that callout and how thick is that pipe?

I would evaluate it as surface profile, but you did it correctly. It should be "PlaneRoot" from 18x planes and A-A should be tangential element, which should be by default once applied here as datum.

Hello Everyone, we have recently updated all CMM's to 2025 at our company. We had the same issue happening as well with Torus features. All the information in this forum was very helpful and I have been able to fix some programs. Was wondering if anyone here had any updates from Zeiss on this?

When you are filling alignment, then you can use plane as first element, then circle as second element, then just symmetry point from groove to be used as rotation lock. Using line from symmetry point and center of a circle is unnecessary step. Then: if you would use symmetry from two planes ( of width of groove 16 ) then this can be misleading because it's direction won't be to exact center of a circle.

I don't like taking classes on-line and the expert class hasn't been offered at the Maple Grove facility in a really long time. I've been waiting.

I sent a couple of my guys to the expert training. They said it was the first training where it didn't feel 'watered down' and they felt like they actually learned new stuff. It saw improvements in their programming after the course, but its like all those trainings, you learn more by actually using it at work in real world applications. If you want a good class for your programmers, I found the Zeiss GDT course is solid. Its about how to correctly use Calypso for both ISO and ASME standards. The biggest benefit to me is that I could send one of those guys to a supplier and say "I'm sending my Zeiss certified cmm expert".

Shawn, Yes it isn't offered often, maybe twice a year. I did have the syllabus once upon a time, but I passed on it because I think I know most of the stuff, or would not use it that frequently, things such as step point, kink points, etc.

Ooh, me!! I'm an "Expert" 😂 I feel like there was definitely some "filler" that most programmers with 5+ years have had to figure out on their own (or with help from this group)...but they covered some topics like Conditional Branching, Multiple Strategies, Macros, and Harmonics

It was over 15yrs ago - and the method was pretty straight forward, with a CAD model: Extract the Tooling Ball Spheres from the CAD model Input the correct nominals, for each sphere Create a new 3D Best Fit Base Alignment - select your tooling balls I used a 10x Loop with a break condition (it usually stopped at 3 or 4) If you have Datum Simulators on the fixture: I would verify the location/orientation relative to the In-Body_position corrdinates of your new Base Alignment. Confirm repeatability of the location of the Datums are acceptable for your application. Datum Simulators could also be turned into Theoretical Features (so they do not need to be probed for every run) Another Method could be to use the Tooling Ball Coordiantes to create a 3-2-1 Base Alignment: 3 of the spheres to create an offset plane (as it is highly unlikely that the coordinates will be in an exact orientation with In Body Position), 2 of the spheres creates a line)... a few more steps, but could be more repeatable(?) Also: you could use the fixture plate for a 3-2-1 Base Alignment, and then: either use the Tooling Balls for a 3D Best Fit or 3-2-1 "Resource Alignment"

Hello everyone, I work as Product Specialist for Eumetron GmbH, based in Aalen, Germany. We offer different products and services such as: - DAkkS calibrations (with minimal uncertainties); -CMM test specimens(within the Zeiss organization, we are responsible for these test specimens, or as we like to call them - artifacts); - monitoring software.

We recently sent a new hire to Basic training for Calypso and he showed me a brochure for trainings and he noticed Zeiss now offers a Zeiss Calypso Expert training.. Anyone familiar with this course? Our company would more than likely be very interested in this.

This works. Thank you.

Das aktuelle Farbschema von INSPECT 2025 und 2026 ist nahe an einer Zumutung für den Bediener! Kaum farbliche Unterschiede zwischen Hintergrund und selektiertem Element sind ein katastrophales User Interface bzw. eine schlechte Softwareergonomie, welches sehr schnell zu einer Übermüdung der Augen führt! Unvorteilhaft ist noch dazu, dass man hier selbst keine Einstellungen vornehmen kann, um die Farben wenigstens selbst anpassen zu können! Gibt es eigentlich das Design "Hoher Kontrast" noch, das in früheren Versionen in den Voreinstellungen unter "Allgmeine Einstellungen" - "Design" ausgewählt werden konnte? Falls nein, warum nicht?

Hello everyone, I recently came across your post and would like to offer some guidance regarding your question. If you have any questions about artifacts used for ZEISS CMM interim checks, please feel free to contact us at support@eumetron.de. We are responsible for these artifacts within the ZEISS organization and we also developed the CMM Monitoring Tool evaluation software. We are happy to assist with general questions about interim checks, as well as specific inquiries regarding the use of artifacts and the evaluation software. The evaluation software (CMM Monitoring Tool) is dongle-bounded and supports all standard ZEISS CMM artifacts. The successor of CMM Check 2.0 is CMM Check 3.0. Here you can find more informations: https://shop.metrology.zeiss.de/INTERSHOP/web/WFS/IMT-DE-Site/en_DE/-/EUR/ViewProduct-Start?SKU=626106-9355-610

Hello everyone, I just came across your post and would like to offer some advice regarding your question. If you have any questions about artifacts for ZEISS CMM interim checks, please feel free to contact us at support@eumetron.de. We are responsible for these artifacts within the ZEISS organization and develop the CMM Monitoring Tool evaluation software. We’d be happy to answer general questions about interim checks or specific questions regarding the use of artifacts and the evaluation software. The evaluation software (CMM Monitoring Tool) is dongle-bounded and supports all standard artifacts for ZEISS CMM.

Hi, I have this on the drawing! Feature is plane from 18 points and A-A is plane from 16 points. This is how I evaluate it, would it be right way? How to evaluate this with New GD&T?