All Activity

I'm just trying to say that you'll never report an accurate radius using less than 60 degrees. In the pictures below, math will never let you fit a circle to the orange lines that accurately describes the radius. Consider using a radius gage.

Goodmorning, Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck for a few weeks now.

@Chad Watton using profile is the same like using constrained radius.

Joe is correct, this isn't a measurement strategy issue, its a math issue. You can't get an accurate diameter on short radii. There's several good white papers online that describe how much uncertainty you accumulate as you make your radius smaller. My analogy is this is like trying to calculate the circumference of the Earth by going out and measuring your parking lot. Would it be acceptable to use profile instead? A profile would ensure your radius is in the correct location and is the correct size.

Hello, Are you reports saving on a network drive? The most common issue for a "freeze" or delay, is network instability. To test this, move your results to the local drive and test.

What are you trying to accomplish? Preventing programs from running with a probe sigma outside of your chosen tolerance?

Is it just me? Have not been able to log in in over a week. It just gets stuck in a refresh loop and still says im logged out. Can log into forums okay still of course.

hello, here is the result with wedges and mid planes both NOK

The math for radiuses can get very weird.... 60 degrees is well into the zone where it can be just impossible for it to calculate a sensible radius.

Yes, the large triangles will represent the surface deviation with lower resolution, while the surface area stays more or less the same. In the properties of the CAD or during import you can define the surface tolerance and max. edge length ZEISS Quality Tech Guide Alternatively, you might use a surface comparison on actual (on the mesh with higher resolution). The CAD should be refined anyways. Keep in mind that the integrated distance is an approximation of the volume, so maybe you want to analyse this with additional inspections. Maybe continuous curve distances using sections on CAD and mesh? ZEISS Quality Tech Guide

@Michael Krauskopf wow... I tried so many combination and this obvious one I missed.. well.. thank you @Joseph Giacona unfortunately it won't prevent the scenario where your probe's sigma is beyond 0.01 (default setting in "Limit values for CNC qualification" unless you've changed it). In that case your data won't update and your PCM will compute it as "successful" qualification

Then you should use a wedge inside the software (instead of using two parallel planes): 1) Create two planes according to your technical drawing 2) Create a wedge from these planes (Construct->Wedge->2 Plane Wedge) 3) Apply Measuring Principle Fitting Element on the Planes 4)Apply Measuring Principle Referenced Construction on the wedge Now you are ready to use the wedge inside the datum system dialog.

After the program is successfully finished the last probe freezes for long time away from part and does not move. If left untouched it takes its own time to finish calculating everything and the probe starts moving again back to clearance zone and then report is generated. It was only on certain operations but now same issue with almost every program causing delays. Is the problem with Calypso or is it CMM machine problem? How do I fix this? Thanks in Advance.

I have done some test and I just cannot seem to get this to work. It is not calculating the radius correctly. I have plotted the actual points in a cad software and it matches what was checked by hand.

Hello, how are you? Now my login works, but it seems that I am not able to open de software with trial. Why this happens? How do I fix it? I would like to try the trial of the software. When I try to execute the .exe file it appears like this: Thank you

Thank you for the quick response. I knew those guides, but I want to double-check my understanding. I have already made a custom add-on for MAD = Integrated signed distance / Area of valid distance. Here is a screenshot of our project. The discrepancy probably comes from the density of the triangles. Areas where the surface deviation is minimal are very dense, so they are weighted more in the mean distance (AVG) parameter because there are more points within the same-sized area. Whereas the integrated distance calculation weighted all triangles equally, as it was controlled by their areas. Am I right?

Hello, Have you had any luck since yesterday?

Just a note. Avoid missing tolerances on masked or not used characteristics. Either turn them off ( no tolerance ) or make a big one. I saw in autorun, that protocol was all green, but program icon in autorun is red. Same can be here.

Can you use the Result element in your post settings? You should be able to Mask/mark the Result Element, so it has no effect on the report but call it in the Post settings like you call the feature. The Result Element would return True or False.

Version 8.0.08. I haven't done a super deep dive on it, but it seems to work on all characteristics under Form and Location, and characteristics under size is hit or miss. But X,Y,Z values seem to always be incorrect.

That's true, @Christian Höfer. However, if additional testing and development is necessary in order to provide a stable release, I fully support Zeiss in delaying the launch date.

I am also trying to understand dynamic profile, but here are my thoughts: Based on the description of dynamic profile tolerance zone on page 244, I don't think it makes sense to have an unequal disposed tolerance zone. To get the result, i would use Profile with Bilateral-two results. Then report the difference between the min and max.

Very strange. I have never seen that happen. What version are you one? Maybe it is a bug you can report to the Zeiss support.

Some updated information You can currently see what licenses you have and how many are in use through the WLMAdmin tool. Unfortunately we do not have the ability to kick an individual user. You can try to reboot the Sentinel service which might free up all the licenses but its not specific to one user.

I usually select Normal from Feature and Base Alignment Axis. On the Normal from feature, I use a copy of the Planar Rotation from my base alignment.