All Activity

Turn down your probing dynamics, if the setup isn't very rigid, it will be vibrating on the initial hit. Also pay attention that you have no filter applied - since you are performing linear scans, you will need to use wavelength instead of UPR.

I would say pull will be better. Due torque of probe tip weight will tip go down, so pulling would help instead of a push. But counter weight could help more. Is it needed to be measured by scan? Couldn't it be measured from both sides so you could have shorter probe?

same here. Another thing I did with the old GDT was make a theoretical 3d line for the best fit bolt pattern (or pattern of features) that is nominal 0 to the best fit, then in position characteristic report to A|B + Theo line -C- for example .. same difference. Ive used both ways.

Howdy, I have a 425mm long probe mounted horizontally. Ive been getting some weird repeatability issues on this bore and im looking for some advice on how to make this program more repeatable. The length of the measured bore is around 337mm long and we have to use a line scan for the given geometry. You can see the crest at the end of the bore indicated by a 20X mag of points and the cylindricity plot. Every time i run the program the crest is either in a different location radially or not there at all. Any ideas of what could be causing this and how to avoid it. Scanning direction is pulling (is it more stable to scan in a push direction?) at 7mm/s DK10 L425 Contura Vast XTR.

@Martin Jánský That is what I use to bulk edit dimensions: gom.script.sys.edit_creation_parameters ( element=gom.app.project.inspection['ITEM_125_2_TP'], specification={ 'combination_specification': 'SZ', 'datum_system': { 'datum_element': gom.app.project.actual_elements['A'] }, 'dimension_reference': gom.app.project.inspection['CYL_125.GG'], 'elements': [gom.ActualReference (gom.app.project.inspection['CYL_125'])], 'material_condition': '(M)', 'theoretically_exact_dimensions': { 'position_1': 1.528034632e-06 }, 'use_bonus_tolerance': True, 'use_pure_geometry': True, 'zone_modifier': 'cylindrical', 'zone_size': 10.0 }, tolerance=10.0) You can see I set the tolernace to 10mm..but the feature after running this script will not change the tolerance. Profiles and Position tolerances won't take the change, but distances and diameters will accept the change.

@Richard Shomaker Love that! Thank you so much for that tip. I'm eagerly waiting for the next opportunity I get to try that out 🤓

@Ivan Servin.2 I haven't ran into a particular case of common symmetry planes, but a workaround you could do would be to create the position of each symmetry plane (to say your A B DRF), set it to a SIMREQ, then go to Resources - Utilities - GDT Best-Fit - Select one of the Positions, now you can use that Alignment as your A B C alignment. I've done this for complicated DRFs, and it works wonders. 🙂

@Jack Nelson.2 Completely agree and happy to help! The common datum is a great addition, but there are some current limitations that I'm hoping will be addressed in the near future. I had a similar part, but instead of holes, the bolt pattern was symmetry planes. Despite the common datum option allowing planes, it was unhappy about the symmetry planes and did not compute an answer. I had to use the legacy method for this.

I followed the steps in the link and found that the "CMM Network" connection on my PC was disabled, for reasons unknown at this time. I re-enabled it and Calypso connected as usual, it seems to be back to normal. Thank you enormously.

Hello, Thank you for the detailed screenshots. From what I can see, the CAD model is visible in the section view within the workspace, but the CAD contour is not being included when the report page is exported as a video. The exported video appears to contain only the volume section data. Looking at the images, I would lean toward this being either a limitation of the video renderer or a defect in the export process rather than a project setup issue.

Hello, From what I've seen, the biggest benefits for CT volume analysis come from ample RAM, fast NVMe storage, and a GPU with sufficient VRAM. I'm not aware of any published data showing significant gains from NVLink or pooled GPU memory, and many workloads appear to utilize a single GPU.

I have delved into this far in the past. Typically, the stylus industry uses a Grade for ranking the sphericity of styli tips, in this case I will speak on ruby styli. I have run test in the past on Master Sphere's and Master Ring Gages. Qualification Methods Evaluated Full standard qualification (180° coverage) 160° coverage 140° coverage 120° coverage 110° coverage 100° coverage 90° coverage Results Testing showed no measurable degradation in diametral accuracy when qualification coverage was reduced from 180° to 120°. (Based on my data, this was not peer reviewed). When qualification coverage was further reduced to between 90° and 110°, a measurable decrease in diametral accuracy was observed, resulting in diametral measurement errors of up to -0.00008 in. Measuring on a Master Sphere allowed me to report location spherically. This was completed with a spherical true position and a tolerance of .0003 in, all location data in the tests passed, I have been searching my USBs for this old data with no luck, but I do recall no deviation from 0.0,0.0,0.0 was greater than .00021 at 90° coverage. All of this is well and good when based on artifacts themselves with 0.76um cylindricity (Basic Class XX ring gage) or sphericity 0.13um (Basic Master Sphere). Note: Ring Gage cylindricity changes by size. I have not yet evaluated these parameters on machined products; however, they provided a useful baseline for projects where qualification with less than 180° of scan coverage during qualification is acceptable. This led to what I refer to as the Three Keys of scanning: Capability – Can the feature be effectively measured using the scanning method? Accuracy – How closely do the measured results represent the true value? This is typically demonstrated through a Measurement System Analysis (MSA). Repeatability – Can the system consistently produce the same results under the same conditions? This is also typically evaluated through an MSA.

Sometimes filling datums not fully can lead to those situations, where recalculations shows another value.

Maximum distance is only to what distance from CAD to mesh will be calculated. Further will not be colored, so there is no reason for overcomplicating this 🙂

Thanks. That did the trick. However I'm not understanding the logic Zeiss used requiring cylinders rather than circles.

Hello everyone, I have a question about the Comparison on CAD feature. I changed the values for the maximum distance and the expert parameters (maximum normal deviation and maximum opening angle). Unfortunately, the original values are no longer displayed. Can anyone tell me what the original values were? Thank you in advance.

Hello - Here is an article that will walk you through many of the checks outlined above: https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?query=connection&id=454224

Any custom settings you made to the feature selected inside the characteristic will be lost when you reassign it. You may have had an alternate evaluation setting on that datum inside of that characteristic. (Right click on datum feature icon to adjust settings inside of a characteristic) Calypso should automatically set the ideal evaluation settings according to which GD&T mode you are set to ASME/ISO

First check the usual suspects: Network card(s) in your PC (settings, IP address, card correctly seated in PC slot?) Network cable to CMM (seated correctly?, undamaged?) CMM settings in Calypso (Calypso uses a standard IP address, which I don't remember out of my head - maybe others can fill in) Do you happen to have a network switch or any other inbetween device between CMM and PC? If so, check if it's ok. Something related that I surely forgot... I all else fails, a faulty CMM controller should also be considered.

Hello all I recently ran into something strange. I have a program that evaluates the profile of a freeform surface relative to a datum (cylinder). I changed the datum to a point and got no result. After I switched the datum scheme back, I got wildly different results. The initial result was about 0.55 and the final result was 0.016. Has anyone else ran into this? Is there something I doing incorrectly?

For an unknown reason Calypso cannot connect to my CMM< a Contura that I've been connecting to for the last 6 years with no issues. We no longer have a service contract so I cannot call Zeiss for remote help, but I am, hoping someone here can help me figure out what could cause the disconnect and how to reconnect. When I turn on the CMM and the drive is on, I am getting the following message, see attached. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Hi Martin, meine Vermutung wieso das nicht geht: Spaltenweise funktionieren die Bewertungen "io/nio" und das "Diagramm der Lage des Wertes im Toleranzfeld" nur für die ausgewählte Stufe und damit auch nur in Inspect selber und nicht mehr nach dem Export, weil du mehrere Werte in einer Zeile hast ...

@Martin Krüger I am glad you found acceptable choice. I think that if it would be possible, then someone would stepped in, so i think only option is to post your idea into MyVoice. Or doing whole table manually ( if it's possible )

Also die Stufen untereinander hab ich hinbekommen. Vielen Dank dafür. Muss aber auch mal sagen, dass das Anpassen der Tabellen ziemlich umständlich ist. Es geht also nicht, dass Elemente Spaltenweise angezeigt werden?