All Activity

I tried building on an existing inspection plan by adding a second model to the file. It would randomly delete the second model from the file and I had to reload it several times. We are using 2024 Calypso. I did most of the added programming with the first model hidden. When I went to test the program it started fine, but then the alignment was super twisted. I would do a manual start alignment and then it would do the basic alignment. The first iteration was fine, but then the second iteration was just wonky and it wanted to crash into the part. I don't think I fiddled with the basic alignment. It was like when I rotated the second model to make it match the orientation and location of the first model that first model (which defined the basic alignment features) rotated even though the first model was directly aligned with the second model.

We have programs made for running qualification checks on the probes that output the sigma value to a report. Once in a while a probe branch will not pass qualification and still output a "passing" sigma. The sigma for each branch is output with a Result Element formula getProbe("Down","3 MM X 50 MM").stdProbeDev. Obviously probes not qualifying is an issue in itself. Are there ways to check the pass/fail status within a program like this?

@Ray Solomon Thanks, but this is not helping in any way. I was trying at home in free version 26 - only option is using 2d lines, so perhaps making it shorter could help.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you're looking for, I recommend using Autorun. You can add a pallet of parts, input the XY offset, and run the entire pallet with a few clicks. This allows you to be able to walk away from the machine while measuring a number of parts. Here is a guide I helped develop in a past job. AutoRun_Guide_2019 (2).pdf

I am trying to update an existing program that requires a max fullness measurement of a helical gear. Originally, the requirement stated the point must lie with ±0.5º (roll angle) of the pitch diameter. When I look at the existing program in GearPro, the tolerance listed in the profile setup for "Profile - position of high point (dc)" shows a max/min value of 0.0661/-0.0661 under user-defined values. The angles are correct on the printout, but I am not sure how the tolerance is converted from the user-defined field to the expected angles. I need to change the expected max fullness point for a revision change, but am a bit stumped as to how I can define the requirement given the entry parameters.

Hey guys, I am not 100% sure why this happens, but we get gaps in the custom printout report. Does anyone know how to remove them or why they appear? We are using the "compressed_tolicon" custom printout template. Not a huge deal for us. I appreciate any help!

Exactly!

https://carl-zeiss-industrial-metrology-llc.helpjuice.com/zeiss-inspect_main/zeiss-inspectcreating-an-initial-alignment-for-trend-projects?from_search=239465967

You're saying a start alignment set up the way Martin mentioned earlier? (pasted below) "And for those alignments: i've opened measuring program -> placed a part into nest1 -> opened alignment window ( base / start ) -> renamed as "ORIGINAL NAME-p1" and run manual alignment. Repeat for all positions. For 3 parts"

A start system with points and a huge search distance before/after nominal position does the trick.

This may also help. https://carl-zeiss-industrial-metrology-llc.helpjuice.com/zeiss_inspect/zeissgom-inspect-check-position-gdt-position-tolerance/version/1?kb_language=en_US

https://carl-zeiss-industrial-metrology-llc.helpjuice.com/zeiss-inspect_main/zeiss-license-manager-20-managing-license-updates-and-missing-contracts/version/1?kb_language=en_US

It could be anywhere from a fraction of an inch to inches difference

@Jochen Heller While this circle is "refferenced" then i am getting no result with warning. Strange is, that in Calypso i can use Symmetry point ( not symmetry from points ) and it allows me to use MMC. Edit: The Scalar actual data missing

You can`t use "Check Dimension (Independency Principle)" on the circles? Thats weird.

@Jochen Heller I've tried circles. I did center of circle from symmetry point, radius from point ( one of them ) This allows me to finally see GD&T sizes, but it can not calculate 2point distance, so still no MMR in that. I wanted to use just 2 actual points to fit circle inside, but i can not do this either.

Got another idea. Contruct circles from the intersection points of the teeth with the red circle and the symmetrie point of the pairs as center of the cirle. The ideal size and tolerance of the circles would be the same as the width. This way you got a elelement of size to use for postion with mmr, that in this scenario represents the same as the width.

That is also our current workflow for the majority of our machines, but we have 100's of programs per machine. So we would really like to get away from the default AutoRun tree structure and just search for them instead

@Jochen Heller I am able to obtain 2 points, but then i am lost. So i think this is not correct drawing to norms. I can report TP for all or individual ones after i fix rotation, but anything above tolerance i can not calculate.

For me this is too small to accuratelly measure. For 0,5mm chamfer i do only one point in the middle of chamfer. Make intersection from faces to obtain sharp corner. Place a touch point and direction set to 45° From that point place theoretical 3d line and intersect from both sides. Now you can measure distance from both directions. For our usage is this fine.

Replicated the situation and ... what to use as linear element of size? There is the witdh, but that is not the actually element the symmetrie or position is used on. So basiclly i would say you can not represent it like it is put in the drawing.

Here's a section view. it's about a half inch in length.

perfect thank you i will try to check it

We have not many programs so i did like directory tree menu. On main panel there is top tree, which directs to another panel, where it divides into another group and so on to final part and it's stages.

@Jochen Heller I think i have a problem only with (M) - can not enable it - not relevant dimension.