All Activity

Thanks everyone for the help. Much appreciated! I got everything going. Here's some information in case anybody else is setting up a rack for the XXT in the future. The plates can only store in the rack in one orientation with the 2 gold connectors being at the back of the probe pocket. With the rack being at the end of the machine in Y+ the XXT angle is A90B0 to store the probe. I actually didn't even have that angle/orientation as an option for my probes, so I added it to each of my probe calibrations. Then you just select A90B0 as your angle to go to after calibration. Since it's already at that orientation after it picks up the probe, it directly rotates to the angle of the feature being measured next. If your rack is mounted on the side of the machine, you would just change you're angle after calibration to whatever it uses to access the rack.

Hallo ich hätte eine Frage an euch: Kann man in der Software Zeiss Inspect eine 3D-Brille anschließen,um eine Zusammenbau der Karosse zu darzustellen?Danke . Imrich

I would incline to STEP version as AI suggested. If you have something like Total Commander to view RAW file you can find at beggining a version of that file. I had same problem with SAT file, where SW was storing it in version 34 ( i think ) and for our old Calypso i was able to open only version 27. I viewed both files and saw that header version. Unless you have problem even with files which were working before.

thanks Zak - this is the log file

thanks Zak - this is the log file

a couple of quick things to check... 1. does the same CAD file load on other PCs? 2. navigate to Extras > Settings > misc > licenses and ensure that all of your CAD related licenses are present and active 3. this has been a bug in an outdated service pack. Are you on the latest service pack? if not, please install the latest, and retest functionality.

The "OK" button int he probe qual window sets the "Favorite" stylus, for lack of a better term, to the currently active stylus #/orientation. Always be weary when selecting if you are using a rotating head to ensure you don't end up with a collision with your probe rack. If you have it going to a Y+ orientation right out of the rack you could rotate directly into the probe rack that would not be cool.

@Thomas Gorman that's perfect! Just what I am looking for 😄 Appreciate the reply!

Hello Stacey, you could try the follwing.

Attempting to upload .stp file. Error message reads "STP file cannot be loaded" Please refer to CAD log for more information"

You can set it up with stages and make a flipbook ( or separate pdfs ) or you can do it manually by replacing actual data. Then it's the same - just recalculate project to se changes. Of course, you must first define your checks (deviations, dimensions, ...)

@Ivan Servin.2This is the million dollar question. And I have the most generic answer for you; It depends. Our average value for roundness is .4 - .6 microns. Anything above 1 micron gets me nervous, but I might still use it depending on where the probe is used. Anything above 2-3 microns and I'm probably calling it bad. We're using Prismo's, Micura's, and Accura's by the way. Not really. I track all roundness and diameter values in a database(not PiWeb). I'm more concerned about change over time. I want to see that the probe's roundness and diameter results are not trending. I think I posted Derek's original program, but the one I use uses PCM to save the stylus and probe user defined header fields in my database. So I can query that and look for trends over time. I also changed the program to use a 25.4mm reference sphere that we have. All cmm's use the same reference sphere to run this roundness scan. I did that because I wanted to eliminate variables of using different reference spheres. No. I heard there was a place that could replace the ruby, but we just buy new probes. We're in the turbo charger/ super charger industry and we have several tolerances that are insanely tight. So I want probes that are in good condition. However, you could probably use your 'bad' probes to measure stuff like castings. There's lots of measurements where you don't need a 'perfect' probe. The one thing to keep in mind, is that the deviations you see graphed are of the reference sphere, not the probe. So you need to invert the positive/negative areas you see on the graph so to speak. Kinda like this in my crude drawing.

figured out what the problem was... i needed to put my copy file code in the pre_start pcm file instead of start.... but this leads to another problem ..... What i am trying to do is set a characteristic attribute to every characteristic in the program. the same attribute will be the same for everything except the 1st characteristic.. i have a counter variable that i am using so the code looks like setCFAttribute("u_my-var","null") if counter == 1 then setCFAttribute("u_my-var",my_var2) counter=2 endif this works perfectly except if the first characteristic is a loop.. ie (1,,8,1)mydim.... however if i manually put it into the pre-settings with just setCFAttribute("u_my-var",my_var2), it puts it in... what am I missing?

Hallo Norbert, danke für die Antwort. Die Datei liegt immer in C:temp .. kann ich diesen Pfad über PCM aufrufen ?

Hi everyone I would like to generate a Surface Comparison of an area on a CAD part against different Actual parts, without having the operator influence every time (i.e., having to manually select it in red before generating the Surface Comparison). Therefore, I am looking for a solution that allows me to mark (or segment) an area on a CAD part, kind of making it a new object (or area) that would be ´pre defined´ every time I upload an Actual Part. Would anyone have tried it or know about any possibility to make it possible? Best regards Bruna

Hallo Manuel, warum die eine Kavität sich anders verhällt kann man natürlich nur mutmaßen. Wir kennen die Bauteile, die zu untersuchenen Merkmale und auch das Program nicht. Du könntest die Netze (der einzelenen Durchläufe) der auffälligen Kavität vergleichen, um herauszufinden, ob zb Trenngrat oder ähnliches nicht jedesmal ausreichend gleich erfasst werden. Auch eine optische Betrachtung unter einem Mikroskop könnte helfen. Grundsätzlich sollte man die Bauteile jedesmal neu in Vorrichtungen einlegen, um diesen Einfluß mitzubewerten.

Hallo zusammen, ich habe eine Frage in die Runde bezüglich einer MSA 1, die wir mit einem CT durchführen. Bei der aktuellen MSA 1 werden 8 Kunststoffflaschen vermessen. Dabei besteht das System die Prüfung für sieben Flaschen, jedoch bei einer Kavität nicht. Kann mir hierzu jemand weiterhelfen oder hat eine Erklärung für dieses Ergebnis? Zusätzlich würden mich noch zwei methodische Punkte interessieren: 1. Muss die Vorrichtung bei der Durchführung einer MSA am CT jeweils ein- und ausgelegt werden oder ist das nicht erforderlich? 2. Wie handhabt ihr das bei einem KMG im Rahmen der MSA 1? Legt ihr das Teil für die Messungen jeweils neu ein und aus oder lasst ihr die 25 Wiederholungen direkt nacheinander durchlaufen? Vielen Dank im Voraus für eure Unterstützung und Hilfe. Beste Grüße Manuel

The two methods I'm aware of and have used are either to use the arrow button next to the start and end points in a segment strategy, or to select all the points I want to reverse from the feature point list, right-clicking, and choosing reverse points.

Thanks, Nanno. I will take a look on details.

I have a spiral 2d curve I am scanning, how do I swap the start/stop points. In other words if I am starting at point 1 and ending at point 1000, how do I swap to change its start and end location? Making point #1 point #1000s coordinates. for additional reference, this is a single 2d line in the CAD. I know the trick about selecting segments in the direction you would like to scan, I need to know how to change directions on a single CAD line. TIA!

@Chad Watton No rush, but I had a couple of questions about the styli roundness scan program that you attached. If you could provide some feedback, it would be greatly appreciated. When do you consider the stylus unusable? If any of the characteristic reports OOT? Or is it more involved? Did the custom report templates provide any extra insight? The reports did not appear to be included, so I used a standard PiWeb report Have you found any use of the stylus deemed no good? Any replacement methods? Have you been able to detect/quantify aluminum buildup in the reporting? Thanks!

I agree. If we had more space on the duramaxs, I'd put a nitrade stylus system on them for the aluminum parts. I've told our higher ups about that too.

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. I received this table from Zeiss Support. Our workpiece weighs “only” 35–40 kg, so it shouldn't be a problem... I think.

A probe qualification should have taken care of this. If you are measuring aluminum, I would advise strongly against using ruby.

Having trouble using this file.. calypso is not reading it on the first run of the program. It only starts reading it after a second run or re-crunch... ie if i run the part.. sn1, it won't read the file, but if i run sn2 or re-crunch sn1, then it reads it.