All Activity

My system has an RTX A4000 16gb, and the CAD models still gets like what you are getting, with complex models, at times.

@Marcel Hartmann, that is so encouraging to hear about! Metrology often involves evaluation of multiple CAD entities in the same setup, and digital distinction of these entities is valuable. Calypso users have found ways to accommodate the "fusing / stitching" in the software but not without sacrificing functionality. Thanks for continuing to improve and evolve Calypso.

I ran into a problem with a wheel file being corrupted, long way around i found where the wheel files are saved and was able to just replace it in this folder. Using 2025 it is located here: C:\Users\***USERNAME***\AppData\Roaming\gom\2025\gom_edited_addons\**tempFileString***\scripts\modules

Hi, Do you have a new standard VAST exchangeable module? If so, you need to register/activate it first; the instructions on how to do that are on the packaging.

1. Can the RondCom NEX 200 scan spheres (Concave or convex). My part is a cylinder with a sphere on the top. I can scan circular perpendicular to the cylinder axis no problem, but can I scan parallel to the cylinder axis? 2. How do I control or set the best angle of the Stylus shaft for scanning a sphere? Typical Sphere diameters are from Ø.180 to over Ø.500

IF I recall, this maybe you have lost your Probe definition which was defined for as an example, VAST XT Gold sensor and somehow, it has been changed. Are able to check your "System Settings: CMM Configuration" tab? From the top menu. Extras Settings CMM Then select the "Probe" tab. This will show you which sensor is selected.

Hi After rebooting my computer I got this alarm, has anyone seen this before? Best regards

Hey all, Our inspector has been reporting an unusual noise, specifically in the Z-Axis, on our 09/15/07 Prismo Navigator. The machine is vibrating/squeaking very loudly when driving in the Z-Axis, more-so when driving down. The noise is much worse at low speeds. If you drive the machine down faster, the noise does not appear. Back in December, the machine was PM'd and recalibrated. It is due again this December. The Counterbalance was replaced during the calibration service and the noise has gotten progressively worse throughout the year. This morning, our inspector called me and reported the machine red-lighted during a styli system change. When the machine drove up to the stylus holder, the machine red-lighted and gave a 33 Collision fault, even though the movement path was clear. Do you all think something behind the Ram Cover is binding up and causing some excessive resistance on the Ram? Have any of you heard of or experienced this before?

Good morning all, Former VAST user here who recently moved over to XXT, and I'm looking for a final sanity check before deciding whether I need to bring in a Zeiss service technician. My primary question is: What verification values would you consider normal for a standard RDS-CAA down stylus? For example, if I check the calibration sphere with the master stylus and then verify using a 2 mm × 40 mm down stylus at A0B0, what X, Y, and Z deviations would you typically expect to see? A while back I noticed some unusual results on a program for a part I had run before. Well after doing some troubleshooting, I was looking at the stylus and did a verification on the cal-sphere. Those numbers came up pretty high, I forget exactly. Anyway, I cleaned the calibration sphere, verified that everything was tight and clean, and recalibrated the stylus. Calibration completed successfully, although the S value was higher than I would normally expect (I forget what the value was specifically but higher than .0010in (.0254mm). The verification issue remained. Eventually I shortened that stylus and the results improved, but when I checked my other RDS-CAA styli I found what seemed like consistently high verification values. The calibrated sphere size repeats very well, but the sphere center location does not agree closely with the master stylus location. My expectation would be roughly 0.0005 in. (0.012 mm) maximum deviation, but I'm seeing values that are often 2-3× higher depending on the stylus, generally with a consistent shift in one or two axes. In contrast, my non-RDS-CAA styli verify very close to nominal and repeat well. I understand that an indexing system will introduce additional uncertainty compared to a non-indexing stylus, but I'm trying to determine what is considered normal versus what may indicate a problem with the system. S values are running generally about .0005in (.012mm). Just trying to make sure I'm not missing anything before making a final reccomendation. Pics of an example, I have seen that deviation in X as well. Y has been good. Thanks in advance As an additional question, do any XXT users incorporate calibration or verification sequences directly into their measurement programs for tighter-tolerance applications? I know this is fairly common in PC-DMIS environments and I'm curious how others approach it in Calypso.

Yes it will do the master probe (Sphere Master Probe relationship) and update sphere position in the calibration program. I have setup 3 spheres in a calibration program works great.

Not Really need to make probes.

The Zeiss Error are great at giving no information of what is wrong

This? ->

I see no problem. If it's for base alignment and you can always hit your datums while on fixture, then you don't need anything else. Other question is how much can real part differ against model in close places, like holes.

Hallo zusammen, ich suche aktuell nach einer guten und eindeutigen Lösung, um die Querbohrungen verdrehgesichert zum stirnseitigen Bohrbild zu definieren bzw. zu bemaßen. Eine Skizze zur Verdeutlichung habe ich angehängt. Vielen Dank schon mal vorab für eure Hilfe 👍

Thanks for the UPDATE

When adjusting the stylus angle visually, use the longest possible stylus or extension. Adjusting with a stylus that is twice as long will halve the deviation.

I can't speak for XXT geometry requalification, but for passive, and also for tensor and 6 points on an VAST/XT. All of these run fine automatically and update the RS position. We use a setup like this for many years now. I guess any type of (re)calibrating the master probe is synonymous to updating the sphere location.

Ooops! It seems my mind somehow added an "un-" to the word "coded".

Hallo, sucht aktuell noch jemand nach einer Lösung zum automatischen Stempeln von technischen Zeichnungen? Ich suche Beta-Tester für meine Software. Das Programm stempelt Zeichnungen automatisch und erstellt daraus direkt einen Calypso-Prüfplan inklusive aller gestempelten Prüfmerkmale. Ziel ist eine deutliche Zeitersparnis bei der Prüfplanerstellung und Merkmalskennzeichnung. https://drawingstamppro.com/beta.html

I just tested Passive Qualification, and the Reference Sphere's position does update when done manually and automatically. I tested this on a 543 with the 4mm pallet and removed and installed the reference sphere between runs.

The "Free" version has 'automatic recalculation' turned on by default. if your elements are visible and you switch alignments, they should recalculate automatically, if not they may have a broken dependency (?) - you can check the reason in the properties tab of the element. If its the latter, you can always re-create the check/element (you can not edit w free version). but that being said its extremely powerful free software, I only wish they'd get rid of the log in / license requirement. (like the good ol' GOM Inspect days). Good luck, post more details if your struggling with something in particular. In the future, this forum may be more appropriate & provide a quicker response: https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/forum/20-general/

I'd be interested in this as well. It's been my experience that the only time the RS information gets updated is when a manual qualification happens. I can do any of the other tips I have, but when it comes to the RS, only a manual calibration works. Although I can fixture a RS to be in the same place, it's never in the exact same place. It's only close. When checking really tight tolerance stuff, only being close can make the difference between pass and fail. That's why I insist on my operators doing only manual qualifications when it comes to the RS. If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

If he says they are using them, but they are not magnetic, then it should be ok. Also here is diameter 3 coded from 113 to 217 https://shop.metrology.zeiss.com/INTERSHOP/web/WFS/IMT-US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProduct-Start?SKU=604001-2017-000&CategoryName=424110&CatalogID=400000&ExtendedNavigation=true

Coded reference markers are typically only used for photogrammetry. If you buy those uncoded 3mm reference markers, while you can make them work on the T-Scan Hawk, they are not designed to natively work on the Hawk, and it will struggle to see them at times.