All Activity

I have an angle probe that we made up here, but I want to keep the following: Measurement Plan Editor Features > Probing Behavior of Passive Sensors > Sensitive Measurement Plan Editor Features > Probing Dynamic (in %) > 25%

Here is the template I use for a Contura G2 with VAST XXT RDS `PROGRAM TEMPLATE.zip

Measure both as a Plane-Point. Create a Secondary Alignment that is rotated to be parallel to the distance Create either a Caliper or Simple Distance Change the active alignment from the Base Alignment to your rotated Secondary Alignment Measure the distance in whatever axis you are looking for (I'm assuming X). Just keep in mind that since you don't have a true measured feature to set the direction, you are relying on the actual angle being close to the nominal angle. The better measurement would either be a Plane to Plane measurement or a Plane to Point measurement. Even if you could do something like measuring a Plane on both surfaces, construct a Symmetry, and using that as your setting direction then you can use thing like Cartesian if wanted.

@Richard Stanich Absolutely. The roller contacts sit in the grooves and are held in place lightly with the toeclamps. Then, I can either tip the block on it's side to balance systems like a cross, star, 2_4 or 3_5 setup or when I have angled setups like Tom showed in his original post I'd use a sine vise and some gauge blocks to set my desired angle and sweep the stylus (or in rare cases the extension) with an indicator. If I have a compound angle I use a combination of a sine vise and a sine plate.

Hi @Keith Forche, how do you ensure the printout is perfectly straight?, like making sure 90 degrees lines up exactly with the y-axis

I am looking for that too. I saw some info inside mesh, but it's enviroment dependant - in other words it's translated. There was info about used memory and stuff

Addendum: Is there a way to query the post-processing of an actual mesh with which its polygonization has been carried out? So adaptive, low resolution, less detail, standard, more detail, none?

Is there a function or a variable in the scripting that can be used to determine whether the currently open project contains a so-called preliminary actual mesh? Thank you in advance for any help!

Hello, I need your help, please. I had to modify my fixture so that I could scan the lower area of my part. Now when I change the 3D of the fixture and move the part to the new position, the alignments (I'm using local best fit) and the features (like points surfaces) don't move with the part.

Is there a function or a variable in the scripting to query whether the currently open project is completely calculated? Or do you have to make do with it, e.g. to go through all the actual elements and check them to see if they are calculated or not? Thank you in advance for any help!

Hi Roy , try moving the first starting position of the calibration plate up by about 1 cm so that there’s still space to move at position 12, then it should work. A similar problem occurred for us when calibrating the GOM Scan 1, of course make sure to check if you have the correct adapter installed (different one for the Atos Q and a different one for the GOM Scan 1).

😎 The same problem on the other side of the Moon. 🤣

You could move the plate ... Which sensor and MV are we talking about?

Hi, I attached a clearer drawing. To get my 2D line, I created an other point(Ubis) close to pointU, and by point recall of U and Ubis i created my 2D line. I'm looking to measure the distance between U and U1 according to the drawing. The dimensions of the part are approx. 2/3 cm on each axis and the thickness 2mm. I hope that's clearer now

Do you have at least drawing? I don't understand how you got this 2d line. Did you use recall or recall measured points? I think that using such sketch is not much helpfull, because everyone from us are looking onto problems differently. Just to summarize: tolerances, problems with definition for CNC scan, varying results in what range, drawing vs used characteristic. There can be many right choices with very different approaches. Also sometimes scale of real part vs magnified drawing can be misleading.

Hi Martin, Thank you for your advice. I set my point with a plane point but i don't see any improvement in my results they are not stables. I noted that there's 3 different option to determine the normal: - Probing direction - Plane measurement always - Plane measurement in manual I didn't find in the manual any explanation on this matter, but they affect a lot my results and the stability. When i choose ''plane measurement always'' because my faces are little, the probe miss the surface and then the normal vector is affected and of course my results. Also, when i create my line ( i attached a figure), the line is not connected to the 2 points. Is it a graphical issue or a problem in my construction? Thank you for your help. IMG_1670.HEIC IMG_1668.HEIC

From ISO 1101:2017 Extracted integral feature: the real, tangible, non-perfect feature as probed by the CMM. Essentially the probed point collection belonging to that feature (a hole, a plane, etc.) Extracted derived feature: the feature computed from one ore more integral features. Examples are real (non-perfect, i.e. curved) median lines (centerlines) and median surfaces (like the median plane of a slot). Optionally, it is possible to specify that the associated (fitted) feature, for instance a Gaussian fitted plane or the perfect centerline of a Gaussian fitted cylinder shall lie inside the tolerance zone. If the Gaussian fitted element (feature) must lie inside the the tolerance zone, rather than the extracted element, this is indicated by adding (G) in the second compartment of the tolerance indicator. See picture below. In many cases, getting the Gaussian associated plane inside a tolerance zone is way easier than the extracted surface itself. So, answering your question, no, the Gaussian (least‑squares) fitting is not the default method for the the feature to be measured. By default, the extracted (real, probed, or calculated from probed points) feature must be measured.

We're using old Visual IPI, I believe it's called differently now as they got bought out. We're paying 5k a year for outdated software so it's got to go. I look for something opposite - as simple as possible - easy to use by someone who doesn't understand drawings very well. I've had DISCUSS, guthrie and 1factory on trial. I'm going to take a look at HighQA and Capvidia. Solidworks inspection looks nice, but I don't think they'll be at IMTS and they don't offer trials.

I'd love to find one that didn't cost an arm and a leg, and had a perpetual license. I got fed up with all of the big names, and spent time developing our own. It was very rough around the edges at first, but after a lot of work we have something that works well for us. Depending on your needs, I might suggest going that route for long term use.

Can you explain how this works? Its peeked my interest.

I had a very similar design "in my head" that incorporated 6 grooves (just extend the current 3 grooves to the opposite side of center) so plate could be rotated 180° for convenience. My design also had the 4 sides ground so block could be turned onto its' sides, also for convenient access to the 3 screws on the back. With ground sides, the block could be held a sin vise or plate, or the adjustable v-block that Richard posted.

Not selling our RDS Contura would have saved a lot of time and money, too. lol

@Jeff Our lab holds the temp at ±0.5° 24/7, so for something like this job, it's not such a big deal. Yes, I know handling causes some expansion but that is minimal. When we're trying to hold microns, the CFX extensions come out. Does Zeiss make CFX adapter plates?

We have a fix assist. It was worth the money. The only issue that we ran into is that the angles were slightly off - especially noticeable at really long distances, so we created new references mark to account for this.

@Roy Espinoza Is this a GOM Scan 1 or an ATOS Q? I ran into issues with the last GOM Scan 1 that I was using where the arm ran out of room to move closer. There was nothing I could do, so I ended up calibrating with the tripod. I believe there is a different mounting bracket for the GOM Scan 1 to the ATOSQ, so make sure you’re using the correct one.