All Activity

Unfortunately, there is nothing repeatable about the setup. It is basically put in by eyeball. One attempt at the setup has it balanced on three 123blocks. Another attempt uses a clamp and an adjustable riser. There just isn't a great way to control it. But that still wouldn't solve the problem.

Your form is pretty tight which likely precludes a wobbly reference sphere or damaged reference sphere, reference probe, or probe. If you are having the issue with multiple probes then I have to wonder if the problem isn't in the probe holder. Given that the deviation in location is primarily in Z, that would indicate that the calibration could be oot in Z. As I type this I think I would expect the measured diameter would be off by about 0.005" to account for the issue. Unfortunately, I am new to automated CMMs and Calypso so I don't have a lot of insight. I am following the topic to see if I can learn something from this.

Hi James, I'm not completely sure if I understand what particular part of the process is causing the crash but if you need the probe to move before it rotates to the for the next feature you can use CMM position points in the strategy of the last feature before the crash to move it to a safe position. Those you can key in manually or simply move your probe (rotated to the correct angle) to the location and hit the button. Under strategy it should be the first button on the left. Otherwise, if the travel is an issue you can block an edge of the clearance cube to prevent it from traveling along that edge. Youll find that option under plan -> Navigation -> Block edges. Under strategy you can also use clearance moves after the measuring strategy to get the probe out and away. Ex if it's backing out to an X- clearance plane and that's too low or too close to the X- side of the machine. You can say X- clearance, Z+ Clearance, X+ clearance. I'm fairly new to XXT and needing to do that so there are probably other cleaner options available as well. Perhaps one of the other users will have a better suggestion.

can anyone tell me how to make my probe come out of a feature raise up then rotate then shuttle to the next feature rather than shuttling and trying to rotate next to the mast and knocking my probe off?

We have a feature that we want to measure with a symmetry point to make sure it is well centered on a fairly thin wall when measuring a line on that edge. So there are two symmetry points, one for each point in the feature. The feature is connected to its own alignment, which is just a 90° rotation about the X-axis so that what was +Z becomes +Y. The symmetry point is in the base alignment. We also wanted to do a test to see if the symmetry point was significant and this is where we saw some weird stuff. The edge we are measuring is at 45° to the Y axis and perpendicular to the Z axis when in the base alignment. We created the measurement and put a formula in for the measured point's Y location (remember the feature is in its own alignment). the formula reads something like: GetActual("symmetry point 1").z This formula is in the definition of the point inside the measurement strategy and not on the nominal of the feature itself. Then we duplicated the feature and put the same formula in except we put a 0.015" offset so it reads: GetActual("symmetry point 1").z - 0.015 It looks pretty good so far. It says that the measurement point in the one is 0.015" lower than the other prior to any measurements being taken. Then we test this six separate times, export all the nominals and measured points to text files, import them all into a common excel sheet and start to analyze the results. There are a few troubling observations. 1) the difference in the nominals of each point is not exactly 0.015". It ranges from around 0.012 to 0.016, but is not exactly 0.015. Be aware that both points are using the same symmetry point. 2) all nominal and measured Z-values match. Between the six tests there are 12 points for the regular and 12 points with the offset. The Z-value for each point was unique, but the nominal and measured values for the point were a perfect match. Why would either 1 or 2 happen? Before you ask, I cannot share any pictures or files.

OK so you're saying that you set your limit at .0005in true position. Which aligns with my understanding as well for an expectation, maybe a little tighter than I would've said but broadly the same. I like your strategy of moving the cal-sphere around the table for subsequent iterations. I think that's a good set-up in general. I've had some ideas as to how to codify the verification moving forward, I think I'll incorporate some of that. Anyway, thank you, I appreciate it. I was really just looking for someone who is very familiar hands on with an XXT to share what their standard is for location verification. Everyone I talked to was somewhat back and forth on what numbers I should be holding that to.

From my XXT probe checking program where I use the 5 standard articulations (1 thru 5). I use the Reference Sphere, XYZ zero is set by the MasterProbe. I then use each articulation and measure the sphere. I report the True Position (TP) for each articulation at .0003 Sphere (Shape of zone). If any are OOT I investigate the issue. Using a Contura 900x1200x600 I run this program once a month (I do a similar test with the VAST XTR Gold). Every month, the Reference Sphere is placed in a new location, I use 5 standard location and two levels of height in Z axis (My riser is 6 inches). This is how I detect nonconformities with a sensor; this method allows the sensor (either one) to move in a wide area around the Reference Sphere while taking measurements and uses a good portion of my volumetric area. Typically, I can detect if a stylus, a sensor or a quadrant has an issue that should be evaluated, after evaluation if found to be a non-fixable issue in house it is escalated to Zeiss. I have been using this method for almost 20 years, and it hasn't failed me yet. As an FYI, I also perform this test with no filters or outliers to detect sensor issues, but I use a wider tolerance. When I run without filters and outliers, it is considered a non-quality program and not for suitable part measurements. I plot data from both programs in excel which tells me if something is wrong. The second program is only run when I think there is an issue after the all testing of the first program is exahuasted. Over laying bell curves of the quality program and the non-quality program should reveal shifts that indicate an issue.

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.