All Activity

Hi, MP02 and base "V" are the intersection points of the cylinder and the plane. I added the circles there to make it clear that both the point and the circle have the same value. Yes, it's on drawing RPS-321. I have this problem elsewhere too, only when I want to evaluate it spherically.

I think Spherical tolerance can not be applied here unless you use some intersection points from cylinder and plane. Otherwise it should be just planar. Also i am curious why are you using only circles. Any RPS on drawing?

Thanks i will check that

These elements appear when the corresponding CAD surface is not (or no longer) associated with the element. This happens either when you replace the CAD model with a new version or when you define a feature manually without clicking on the CAD at all. You can reassociate them to the CAD by using the CAD model comparison, but the procedure is a bit awkward and doesn't always work 100%.

Hello all, I have a problem with evaluating this position. The problem is that when I position MP02 relative to base 'V', I get the resulting value as shown in the picture. So how do I make the measurement result match what the drawing asks for?

All this does is disable the automatic scanning repetition with half speed in case the XXT sensor has lifted off the surface (because it wasn't able to follow the deviating surface properly at the set speed). But it doesn't allow you to freely scan in the air.

I'm running the patch version 8.0.1603 - I have no issues now.

Hello! Was the problem fixed in version 8.0.16? Best Regards, Matthias

Regarding your last post. The linear size check do not measured the virtual condition, due to the fact * for datum B your linear size check do ignore the perpendicular constraint to datum A * for datum C your linear size check do ignore the perpendicular constraint to datum A and the distance constraint to datum B We are quite sure that we compute the virtual condition quite exact but if your sure that there is really a computation mistake please contact your local support contact. Regarding your first post: Due to the fact that MMR computation is the simulation of a gauge, you have to check if it possible to put a virtual gauge (based on your nominal sizes) into your drills (or bolts). If this failed the error message appears. We don't see how it should possible to provide a standard conform datum system without this check (and the error message if this check is failed). Of course, we could and should think about more user feedback what exactly is going wrong. This is already on our list for further improvements.

Hallo Joseph, es könnte sein da Du aus versehen in deinem Element Profile-D-0.020 im Komentarfenster eine Leerzeile drin hast. Dann entsteht so etwas. Vielleicht hilft es ja.

For anyone interested here is checked settings in "inspection" file ( from one of my programs ): phParaFor_E -> in Edit mode phParaFor_R -> seems like for run / i have drawingno fixed in edit mode, so in RUN there is no field to fill this #( #phParaFor_E ' ->' #( #OrderedCollection #drawingno #u_kontrolor #partid #u_field4 #u_field5 #order #u_field6 #aname #u_znaceniDilu)) #( #phParaFor_R ' ->' #( #OrderedCollection #partnbinc #order #u_field6 #u_kontrolor #palletlocation #u_field7 #u_field4 #u_field5 #u_znaceniDilu))) Also filled header with data is in same file: #userDic: #( #Dictionary #( #aname ' ->' 'TEXT') ...

@DailtonReis @Adam Mills I can make something, but i have a little time for that. I still work on my app for Calypso programs, but i have a little free time. Since i have not looked into this problem i would need whole program before and after to find differences ( can be dummy one ) and i'll prepare an app where you will select all programs which you want and source of headers. It will make changes for all selected programs.

I'm looking for this too.

How big is magnification? 200? I rather use cylinders than those points. So all features are having correct nominal vector and same feature's alignment, right?

Well, for measuring distance, like thickness you create symmetry plane from oposing planes. Then use GD&T. BUT it won't work for planes with same direction, like depth and it won't work on planes, where actuals are not against each other. For measuring distance i am usually using a fitting point and projected distance. For fitting point - nominal can be clicked on CAD model or by using "Restore Point Selection" from wanted plane. Then show actual mesh, again fitting point - use "Restore Point Selection" on actual Plane - this will make actual point. Now just link nominal with actual ( assign measuring principle - Link to actual element. You can also use just nominal point and "Refferenced construction". I still see, that Inspect and Calypso are not equal. One do somenthing better than the other. Like those measurements, or like on my last post - symmetry point won't allow you (M) while Calypso can.

They're just angle characteristics. The cad eval is enabled with tolerance Windows. The angle is oot. So the top image results are correct. I was expecting the top image to look like the bottom image.

I might be wrong in my understanding of how different software calculate the distance between planes, but for me in Calypso it is pretty straight forward to use a Caliper distance or other characteristic to determine the distance between the average center points of two planes. But how can I do this in Zeiss Inspect? I have seen several ways to measure the distance between two planes, but they all give different results. So the question stands: how do I measure the distance between the average center points of two planes? Or please correct me if I'm looking at this problem wrongly. Thanks,

@Pat Bryant Are you sure this formula is correct? This "^" means beginning of text and "$" means end of text - i don't think using it twice is correct. Or what is your goal and what it is doing and should not? This is some sort of regex, so you can try some online testers for that - perhaps some will fit into PiWeb usage.

That "constrained" picture seems like wrong nominal vector - that second picture is not showing correct 45° I would believe that "non-constrained" is constrained. How you got to show this image. By "Form" or profile?

Hi, been awhile since I worked with cams, but i recall that most CMM's weren't quite accurate enough for cam lobe inspections. Data wasn't as clean as we needed so we ended up buying an Adcole system specifically for cam lobe profiles and doing reverse engineering on cam lobe profiles. I cannot to much specifically on using the cam functions within Calypso thou.

Back to the original topic of the thread: This.

Back to the original topic of the thread: This

OK I'm hoping someone else jumps in here because I don't remember the whole thing: This chunk of code {^((?!\.\(M|L\)|\^Diameter For).)*$} gets pasted into the piweb designer. I can't remember exactly what to do with it to make it work but it does remove those lines (as well as MMC / LMC lines that everybody hates).

I'm having issue hiding multiple cad files during planner simulation. I have one program for different operations, but when I run planner with cads hidden in the hierarchy it still shows all the cad files with shows collision all over the place. I can go around and troubleshoot the collision, but it would be much easier if calypso could hide only the specified cad during simulation. Does anyone has a solution for this issue?

@MPA Industrial CT Scan Artifacts in Multi-Material Components Overview Industrial computed tomography (CT) inspections performed on complex components often include materials with significantly different densities, atomic numbers, and X-ray attenuation characteristics. When materials such as aluminum, steel, titanium, tungsten, plastics, elastomers, or composites are present in the same scan volume, artifact formation can occur even when the scanner is operating correctly. Why Artifacts Occur CT reconstruction assumes that X-ray attenuation measurements remain consistent throughout the rotational scan. High-density materials absorb substantially more X-ray energy than low-density materials, producing non-linear attenuation effects that violate ideal reconstruction assumptions. Beam Hardening Lower energy photons are preferentially absorbed as the X-ray beam passes through dense material. The remaining beam becomes more energetic, resulting in beam hardening. Common symptoms include dark bands, cupping artifacts, false dimensional edges, and density gradients around dense features. Photon Starvation In regions where thick or high-density material blocks much of the X-ray flux, too few photons reach the detector. Reconstruction algorithms amplify the resulting noise, creating streaks and star-shaped artifacts between dense features. Scatter Effects Scattered radiation reaching the detector introduces incorrect intensity measurements, reducing contrast and creating haze, streaking, and edge distortions. Metal and High Contrast Artifacts Sharp transitions between materials of vastly different attenuation levels can generate reconstruction errors, partial-volume effects, and edge overshoot artifacts that appear as bright or dark streaks. Physical Filters Physical pre-filters made from materials such as copper, tin, or aluminum are commonly placed in the beam path. These filters remove low-energy photons before they enter the part, reducing beam hardening and improving consistency when scanning dissimilar materials. Digital Correction Methods Zeiss Inspect X-Ray Professional provides correction tools including beam hardening compensation, ring artifact reduction, detector normalization, noise filtering, and optimized reconstruction settings. These algorithms reduce systematic errors before and during volume reconstruction. Best Practices Use the highest practical tube voltage, select appropriate physical filtration, optimize exposure time, increase projection count, minimize detector saturation, and orient dense materials to reduce extreme attenuation paths. Reconstruction parameters should be validated using representative production components. Summary Artifacts are a natural consequence of X-ray physics when dissimilar-density materials are scanned together. Understanding beam hardening, photon starvation, scattering, partial-volume effects, and detector limitations allows inspection laboratories to minimize artifacts and obtain cleaner, more reliable CT data.