All Activity

You have not shown us how you have the others setup. I'm just saying what you have defined inside of the Profile is incorrect. Datum B is not just a singular circle.

I think A and B columns are used only on RDS, but i may be wrong on this. I think on fixed heads, there is only XYZ vectors what matters.

I have run into a problem with a probe and am losing sleep over it right now. If I number the different probe angles any fool thing I want, will it mess up the calibration? Specifically, suppose I set probe 2 to A=-90, B=-65 and say probe 4 to A=90, B=-90 ... would that mess up the probes? I am kind of at my wits end for finding another issue with what is going on. They have been running like this for a while and it worked fine ... until it stopped working. Now it gives me weird results. Replacing the probe and recalibration has had no effect. FYI it is a star probe with only one leg which sticks out in the -X direction from the main shaft.

How do you do calibration? When i was doing manual calibration, then i had to touch ref. sphere in direction of probe tip - i had difficulities with A45 B60 ( i had to scan right bottom corner ). Isn't your probe shanking? Also i would considered lowering dynamics and probing force. Could you post photo of your probe setup?

I appreciate the answer, but this does not match the numbers shown in the graphic. In the first position, it looks about right. Assuming the numbers are in inches. But in position 4 the XY values should be remarkably similar but they are not. Same with position 5. Rotating the probe 90 or 180 degrees about the Z axis should give predictable results following the idea that you proposed. Based on the graphic I am guessing that this comes to me from Zeiss through you. Right now, I have two guesses I am mulling over. 1) the brand new probe that is giving great results in terms of the sigma is actually a very bad probe. But this appears to be the case with more than one new probe then. So I am disinclined to believe this is the answer. 2) The software has a built in filter that assumes very specific angles for specific probe numbers and it will just give you garbage if you program them at some other angle.

I just went through position call out for the .122 holes and the .300 holes in the exact same way. According to Zeiss support the position was correct. Does profile work differently?

I think you have this built incorrect. Datum B would be a common datum of the (10x) .122 diameter - it should not be a singular feature. Datum B is going to control the X/Y Origin and the Planar Rotation. You cannot build a common datum with Circles though. What you could do though (as long as you are in 2025+) you could create the 10x Position of the Datum B holes to Datum A - they would live inside of a SimReq. Then you can create an alignment from that Best-Fit that it builds - Resources - Utilities - GDT Best Fit - just select one of the Datum B Positions. Inside of your Profiles, you can switch over to Loose and use the GDT Best Fit alignment.

Datum B is a pattern of 10 .122 holes, which Is why I am surprised to see the 10 Counterbores in Sim Q. I was surprised to see that as well but because Datum B is a pattern I assumed that using the Sim Q was correct. Don't have freeform. I may just report these with the old GDT engine.

I am not familiar with ASME here, but shouldn't datum B a pattern of 10 holes of .122? Next - i think that profile .01|A|B is applied only on that cylindrical part of contour - rest of contour should be .02 as note 8. I don't know why using SimReq here - do you have freeform? Would be much easier to evaluate one feature, than every plane and cylinder separatelly altho same datums.

I am measuring profile of 5 separate surfaces on my part with are called out to Datums AB per the note. Datum B being the 10 .122 holes (pattern). After entering all relevant information into my surface profile box, I see that simultaneous requirement actual has the 10 counterbores in there instead of the .122 datum B holes. They are all on the same axis, but I wasn't expecting to see them there. Is this a glitch in the new GDT engine or have I got something wrong here? Would appreciate your input.

So much help!!! Thank you both!!!

Your info is blocked in your image, Im guessing its similar to this setup. I use these all the time and show a full Disk in Planner. See image. Attached is an SSC file you can look at. (In 7z zipped format. Combo76R.7z

I have been tempted to try and run calypso on my home gaming rig, 9800x3d, with a 9070xt, just for fun. I have an old license, from a machine that we took out of service, that I could play with, maybe.

I would measure the core diameter using the Accura and a 2.5-3mm ball probe. For contours and angles use your contour pen; then multiply the result of the contour recorder by two and add it to the core diameter. Measure the core diameter with a spiral track (pitch 2.5 mm) using the Pferch/Gauss method. https://theoreticalmachinist.com/Threads-MetricMProfile.aspx

Hi Expert, We need to use plate stylus which must be simulated by Planner ( No joke, it’s a grim reality... ) CALYPSO 7.4.24 Using the Zeiss Stylus-kit 1.7.8817 I can define a plate stylus using generic geometry. At the End I´m not able to define the plate as a sensor. Try to load the ssc file in planner end´s with and error message. How do you define your own plate stylus to be able to simulate this in Planner??

That should do it. Thank you!

Result Element, formula: deg(getActual("circle1").coordPolAngle)

File "inspection" contains almost everything tied to features and characteristics. File "Inspset" is mainly some settings, but there is stored also default probe system and unit setup. Other files are not that important - perhaps model 🙂 Then you can find any app to do checksum for all files in program folder. Perhaps doing zip archive ( or tar ) without compression would do the trick for only file

Mesure the ring faces to level up the plane and in the special button rotate 30° coordinate system on Y axis

Hi, I have question regarding true position plots, I saw the same question in previous posts, bet there wasn`t clear answer. I have bore pattern of 16 M12 holes. My question is why I have the result of hole bore pattern, but I don`t get result for every individual hole, I mean illustration? Is there possibility to leave illustration of hole bore pattern, but turn of this individual bores? Thanks in advice 🙂

Hallo zusammen, hab eine Interaktion gefunden die auf die NOT TO DO Liste kommt.. Keine Leere Geometrie erstellen und dann einen Punkterückruf machen. Gehabt euch wohl, Grüße YM

Be aware of 3D lines: If the two points you are using are at different heights, measuring the angle between them may introduce errors due to the inclination of the 3D lines. The best approach is to measure the circles and use the Projection option under Under Construction to project the centre of each circle onto a plane. Always use the same reference plane for all projections. You can then construct the 3D lines based on these projected points. I have never had any problems measuring angles when using this method. est

Hello Benjamin, the X/Y/Z values are the distances to your Masterprobe: Best Regards Marcel

Joe, Overall, it depends on which compiler ZEISS uses and with which flags. The OP code (binary instructions for the respective hardware CPU) depends heavily on these flags. Standard arithmetic is certainly the same on every platform. Complex mathematical functions (such as sin(x) or ln(y)) are implemented in a library. How this ultimately generates op-codes – that is, the precise instructions for a specific CPU – depends, in turn, on the compiler. If you want absolute precision, the only solution is to use statically linked libraries, which ensure that fixed and verified OP code is used, regardless of the compiler employed and its flags Ultimately, I don’t think there are any noticeable differences depending on whether you use an AMD or Intel CPU for CALYPSO. Rather, the interesting question is whether things like the GPU, threads and massively parallel processing will be used.. 🙂

I am guessing here. Is this an ID?