All Activity

OK so then i think use correct evaluation - tangential element - that can do a lot.

I don't have 26, but i would say - explore that recorded script. Certainly you can remove some of it's content to fulfill your goals.

User Interface. It's Calypso's greatest weakness. The geometry wizards who designed and manage Calypso's architecture need to team up with an entirely different group to modernize Calypso's UI. My kids' Roblox games have more visually-fluent interface.

Hi Thomas, The path that CALYPSO opens when you click "Find" is set at Extras > Settings > Environment > Paths (Default Path for Measurement Plans). It is strange that renaming "CALYPSOFileDialog.exe" would open a different path than the one specified by the Default Path for Measurement Plans. Is the default path on your systems set to the Inspections folder?

You need to enable additional printout on those positions. You are reporting Simple distance which may not be the same as your DRF. Go to characteristics setting editor - Report - additional report - and change to "On" on those position. It will show you correct Y and Z used for position.

You do not.

The link is not working at the moment, but according to the youtube video I watched, you need freeform/curve for this. Is that true? I do not have those licenses.

I knew it was a supplementary angle, and I did try reversing it with the angle representation button. That didn't solve the issue. So I suppose I will have to make another alignment...which I was afraid of considering alignments on a part without flat surfaces was my initial issue...so I really don't know how I am going to do that.

Running 2026 Zeiss Inspect When you record a tolerance change on a Diameter or Distance and then run that script it will change the tolerance and nominal size. When you record a profile tolerance change and run that script it will not change the tolerance. When you record a position tolerance change and run that script it will not change the tolerance, but it will allow you to change the True Position location. Odd behavior...There are many times we have similar programs with the same feature names and I like to run a script to automate changing things over many programs.

Hi @Darci Burch. Calypso is reporting the supplementary angle, perhaps because the torus surface normal or feature orientation is reversed. That is why a nominal 45° angle appears as 135°. You may be able to reverse this by clicking on the angle representation button next to A1/A2 in the feature window, or you may have to create a specific secondary alignment.

I'm not in aerospace, but a fan blade for instance, wouldn't you want to establish a primary height datum and measure incrementally from that surface certain heights up? Maybe you are saying they best fit the overall part, in this case the blade, so Datums are irrelevant, and then you section a certain height up from the CAD Z origin, which then using actual so the nominal section and real section are cut on top of each other. That seems strange to me b/c we are always analyzing section cuts and profiles from proper robust datums. I hope turbo fan blades are measuring section cuts from datums 😉.

I did some reading and it seems like the best bet for having 3 that match would be to buy some and just grind all of them together at your shop/a local machine shop. we have a grinder at our machine shop that we would often use to grind 123-246 blocks together and this usually works out well, but buying a set online that have 3 matched together seems unlikely

https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=879676 Here's an article about 3d best fit alignments that might help.

Hello Thank you for your answer in, I also try to find an answer with Microsoft AI "Copilot" a i ask to put anything in a PDF. Ar this correct? please let me know your opinion Calypso_GDT_Datum_Alignment_Summary_With_Image.pdf

I have never attempted this type of alignment. I will have to watch some tutorials on it. I am going to be learning about it later this month at a training class, but that doesn't help me right now 🙂

I did notice that it was inverting them as far as internal/external. Another thing I noticed that maybe you can answer... The angle of the slanted area is supposed to be, for example, 45 degrees from the face. The actual from the model is correct. When I probe it, it gives me results near 135°. I am sure this is an easy fix, I just don't know what it is.

Keith, When I am talking about a torus, I am not referring to the area you highlighted. I am referring to the slanted, indented sections. There are 4 of them around the part and they are at different angles

@Martin Jánský.2 We just switched to 2026...your post made me simulate this...I've instructed our programmers to NOT set a standard b/c we always use geometry, and if we desire ASME we can do it at the feature level. But you are correct, if you set the standard to ASME, then try to do an incomplete cylinder it fails...that is crazy, it worked fine in 2021. They are really tightening up the rules. Weird.

Thank you for your fast reply. For the position we're only using a circle. There shouldn't be deviation in angle as you can see here: Hope that picture helps. Greetings André

I was kind of thinking along the lines of Edgar, Where the profile callout is giving you more of a location reference and the note is giving you a form reference. Whereas if you were to think of it as a flat surface, the location of the surface needs to align within the main profile callout, but then no part of that surface can vary by more than the note almost like a .015 flatness

E.g. if you want to have an Inspection section. Nominal and actual plane must be geometrically identical to get a deviation result. If you have applied a measuring principle to a nominal plane, e.g. Bestfit you usually will get an actual plane which is not geometrical the same plane as the nominal plane (otherwise you wouldn't habe to measure your specimen). If you create a section on nominal and actual with the combination of nominal and actual plane and 'Referenced construction' you will get not the expected deviations in the Inspection section (usually you want to have a section on the actual data which is geometrically exact at the nominal plane geometry). There a lot of industries which requests that: Automotive, Airfoil, etc.

@Martin Jánský.2 what do you think about them getting rid of the feature being measured from the pop up menu? We just switched to 2026 and it drives me nuts. You can see it missing in the above image.

@Bernd Alpers We never use actual section. I'm sure there may be some cases when you need it, but I have never encountered one. Sometimes we cut on the CAD X,Y, Z plane so using actual vs reference it almost irrelevant, but I'd still use reference on X,y,Z planes b/c if you change them somehow the won't break as easily as the OP poster here saw. I'm assuming if you wanted to use actual due to a poor stabilized plane, you could instead find a way to stabilize it(ie directing it based on a primary datum) or some machined feature and still use reference. Other than that, I don't see a use case for ever using Actual Section. Can you give me an example when it is desirable to use Actual Section?

This error, for us, has been when writing to the network and something interrupts that process. (Our corporate cybersecurity software HATES calypso programs.) And our solution has been to never use traditional network windows fileshares with calypso. Using sharepoint has some concept of "syncing" files instead of "copying" files that does not upset our IT department

On ZEISS's recommendation, I renamed the file "CALYPSOFileDialog.exe" because the official method of disabling this new menu caused extremely long loading times on my system. However, renaming the file has a downside, at least on both of my machines. The Windows Explorer now opens in the Workarea folder instead of the Inspections folder. This is also quite inconvenient.