All Activity

I am wondering if settings for metal sheets would work - like you want to measure diameter of a hole in metal sheet. What settings you have for polygonizing? In expert settings you can set more. In Inspect manual pdf is more about it - worth of a try to read it about polygonization.

I have a vanadium formed part that has been laser etched with a pattern (before forming while in flat sheet metal state)(formed state looks like a mixing bowl) Now that the part has been formed the customer would like a scan of the part and I am having a difficult time capturing the laser etched pattern. I have played with the exposure time with mixed results, sometimes it would capture some of the etched shape yet have no depth (similar to a through hole) , other setting would have captured a few samples of the pattern with a "V" depth however once I polygonized the scan it would smooth out the etch feature. ATOS 5 is our unit.

@Michael Gahagan Yes. Unless you select "No Datum Reference Frame" from the drop down. A surface profile with no DRF is a form only measurement. For example, a surface profile of a plane with no DRF is a measurement of flatness. To get some visuals and a better understanding of surface profile, click here https://www.gdandtbasics.com/profile-of-a-surface/ Also it is important to understand the different evaluations when using surface profile. The standard tolerance zone is bilateral - one result. This means you have a tolerance zone equidistant from the nominal contour of your part, and the tolerance reported is the largest deviation doubled. This will always be a positive number, which may not always be helpful when troubleshooting a surface condition. A bilateral tolerance zone with two results will give you the minimum and maximum deviations from the nominal surface. This may be more helpful when troubleshooting a surface condition. The plane with the surface profile call out must fall within a bilateral tolerance zone of 0.008 inches with respect to datum reference frame AB. Datum A is the inside diameter cylinder axis and datum B is the large plane parallel and 0.250 inches from the measured plane. By using the surface profile call out, the engineers want to control the location, orientation, and form of the plane with respect to the perpendicular created by DRF AB. If you were to add up the deviations you measured using granite and hand tools, and doubling them, would you be close to 0.0077?

Tom, I'm trying this method to save time measuring slots around a shaft and I'm getting this error. Any suggestions?

Yes, Datum -A-, is the, poorly drawn in blue pen, .250" Ø cylinder in the center of the part. That worked in the characteristic calculating, thank you. Does a profile callout always REQUIRE all 3 datums? I'm not thrilled with the results I'm seeing, so I reprogrammed in a different orientation, and have only slightly improved my results. Is there any good way of double checking profile manually? I admit I do not have a strong understanding of profile yet, but with my best program, I am seeing .0077" of deviation when my tolerance is .008. So I would think I should see SOME kind of variation even just using basic granites, arbors, and indicators, no? Example 1 for manually checking: -B- placed against granite table, and running an indicator over the toleranced face, low point to high point across the face is only .0015". "Parallelism to -B-" Example 2 for manually checking: Holding onto -A- using an inspection arbor and running an indicator along either the toleranced face or datum -B-, .0005" - .001" in deviation. "Axial Runout to -A-" Example 3 for manually checking: .250 basic length, .2509 - .2523 across entire face. Also, the Perpendicularity of -B- to -A- on the print is .00075". Datum -B- plane is evaluated as outer tangential since it is a datum. Are there any other things to check or improve upon? I always struggle to believe and accept what I have taught myself. Thank you again for the help, it is greatly appreciated.

HI, THERE IS A WAY TO CHECK 2TWO PIECES AT THE SAME TIME

@Jeff Frodermann I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TRY IT AS SOON AS I TRY IT I'LL UPDATE YOU, THANKS FOR THE ADVICE

Hello all, We have a new Zeiss and I'm currently running Calypso 7.8.12 SP3. I see there is a new patch from 1/11/26, as well as a newer Full version with SP download 7.8.20. What SP is the current download, and do I need to install the patch after that or is it included in the full version with sp? Or should I just stick with SP3? Thanks for all your help.

I use Calypso 2023, maybe it does work for the older version, unless I am doing something wrong. Any tutorial please ? As far as I know the RDS probes are not saved in the inspection file.

Here is a link to instructions for what Kevin is describing, if that is helpful: https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=1793299

Richard, Unfortunately, this problem keeps cropping up. Once it has occurred, it cannot be reversed. Even Zeiss support could not find a solution other than trying to reset the base system to zero. Unfortunately, this does not really help. Creating a new test plan, loading CAD from the current ACIS file, copying measurement elements and test features from the defective Programm, and redefining the base system does not help either. The only viable solution is to start completely from scratch. Zeiss promised us in 2023 that everything would be better with the new version of Planner. They also promised that our CONTURA would be implemented in its dimensions of 700x700x1000, as well as the XXT probe racks. Above all, they promised that the memory leaks would be eliminated and that there would be 100% collision detection of the entire probe/XXT plate/sensor/quill and so on. OK, a simple promise... But when I look at the reports from colleagues here who use Planner 8.0, it seems to me that the big leap forward is more like two steps back. However: never give up...

One situation where I sometimes use projection instead of intersection is when I have to measure in regions of the part where I expect small holes to appear due to limited coverage of the part surface. It's very annyoing having to edit many point measurements just because the elongated nominal vector hits a tiny hole in the mesh and you get no result. By using projection instead I can often get a result right next to the hole anyway. Of course it depends a lot on the circumstances and the purpose of the measurement.

In Karsten's situation I typically see this when both "Measurement Plan Simulation" dialog box is open along with "RDS RC position" dialog box.

Thank you for your valuable information. Let me try this

Hi Jake, i can feel your frustration, but in the end it is all just categories and names. I am also placed in quality and glad about it. At my working place oftentimes engineering can`t follow my train of thoughts and the head of quality is one of the most constructive and knowledgeable guys here.

"I apologize, but I haven't come across this issue before. You may consider providing feedback to Zeiss; perhaps they will address and fix the bug."

Yes! Kevin, amazing that you understood what I meant! I’m really happy! I’m just not sure if a Zeiss CMM can handle it." “太棒了” → "great job" / "amazing"

Are you guys categorized as part of the quality, machining or engineering team? For me, sadly, it's quality. I say "sadly" because our quality leadership has more or less no idea what I do, or how I do it - nor can they interpret the information I present. It's maddening, because I essentially report to the engineering team in every way, but officially. The engineers provide the prints, the CADs, they discuss the results with me, they include me in their projects, they call upon the CMM for verification of the machining centers, etc. The "quality" team is worried about welds and welds only - dimensional quality is lost on them. The real kick to the groin is this inevitably places the CMM under the quality budget. So, when I need a sensor, adaptor plate, extension, stylus parts, etc, I'm met with "wow, these are expensive" and "are they necessary?" Management nearly flipped when our big MMZ-B needed laser mapping last year ($30k.) Life would be so much easier here, if I reported to engineering or machining. Oh well, maybe someday.

Es mag logischer erscheinen, wenn man EINE Achse zu EINEM Bezug auswertet, aber das entspricht nicht einer modernen Messweise, wie sie einem ein KMG bietet. Zwar muss man die Toleranzen anders auslegen, wenn die Konstruktion einen gemeinsamen Bezug fordert, aber das Ergebnis ist immer eine stabilerer Bezugsachse als mit nur einem einfachen Bezug. Es ist eine geometrische Tatsache, dass das Messergebnis umso mehr Messungenauigkeit aufweist, je weiter das zu messende Element zum Bezugselement entfernt ist. Diese Messungenauigkeit verbessert man erheblich, wenn man einen gemeinsamen Bezug verwendet. Die Bezugsachse ist dadurch wesentlich länger als die Achslänge des auszuwertenden Elements. Die Toleranzen zwischen beiden Methoden sind nicht direkt vergleichbar, aber ein gemeinsamer Bezug macht es erst möglich, funktionelle Toleranzen festzulegen und auch die Reproduzierbarkeit wird wesentlich verbessert. Wenn man diese Methode erst einmal verinnerlicht hat, möchte man es nicht mehr anders machen, aber die Festlegung der Toleranzen muss natürlich immer in Absprache mit der Konstruktion bzw. dem Kunden stattfinden.

Thank you for your answer, but the settings in 7.8 are 90% the same then in the previous versions. 😞 Checked all settings but could not find something to adjust color or size. Thank you

Hi all, I am having some difficulty with this and I feel like there has to be some step I am missing that would make it a whole lot easier than trying to manually adjust every styli so that it visually appears to make contact with the part as it should. I just created a new 4PointStar that has 12 styli to pick from. It looks like everything works in the +X, +Y, -X and -Y but as soon as I rotate the head to the A45_B0 or A90_B0, none of my Styli are working as they should be. It looks like they Geometry worked as it should when I built it up in the Stylus System Creator but it only lets me build up those first 4 styli and the remainder needs to be imported through the RC File. Importing went fine but functionally, they aren't working. Does anyone have advice on best way to approach or fix this?

Damn! You have Alufix by Witte? Really good fixturing equipment, but the pricing. 🤨

Far and away I use +/- 3 sigma for the huge majority of the dimensions as 90% of the tolerances here aren’t very tight. But when the tolerance window starts getting below 0.002” I start tightening up the sigma values because I don’t want noise, random freak vibrations, probe chatter and the like affecting the results. The closer the window gets to 0, the closer I get to a sigma value of 2.0. At that value I’m eliminating roughly 4.5% of the data and for me personally, I don’t want to be removing any more than that. I’ve been using this method for quite some time and seems to work fairly well. I was just wondering what other people here consider the stopping point.

@Michael Gahagan Add B into the tertiary datum, it should calculate.

I think your profile should be only for upper plane. This datum A is not drawn correctly - is your datum A an inner cylinder? If you post screenshots with a setup of that profile callout ( just that window with datums and feature ) it would be helpfull too. Here you can post only some of extensions and whole programs are not wise to distribute.