All Activity

Yep , its killstrike from designer. I think that the designer confused position with surface profile. Thanks for the feedback.

I saw evaluation in one axis, but that was in Calypso and only for curves - not for FF. I ended up with equidistant points and reporting their deviation in on axis. But i can not figure out what meaning will that number have for me.

I solved this way.

Surface profile evaluated along only one axis for example for only for X. I think its overline task. So i need another opinion.

What you mean by one direction? Like in Calypso which will report maximum only for outer or inner? That can be achieved by using normal surface profile and pinning maximum / minimum from all selected points of profile result.

Good morning or perhaps good evening, I've noticed when scanning larger parts with my ATOS 5 on the ScanBox 5130 system that I am getting artifacts on my mesh due to shadows being cast onto the part from fixturing and thread locators. Is there a way within the software to reduce or eliminate this issue without having to go in and cut out every shadow line? They cause issues within the measurements themselves and cause false fails. If there is not a good software fix for this, what is everyone using for physical shadow reduction? Kind Regards, -Yager

If you are using the classic GD&T, you have the always use .x and .y - the naming itself doesn't matter, it's more in the order. So if you were measuring a Position in the X/Y plane .x = X axis; .y = Y axis. If you were measuring in the X/Z plane .x = X axis; .y = Z axis. If you were measuring in the Y/Z plane .x = Y axis; .y = Z axis.

Hi team , it´s possible to evaluated surface profile only for one direction ?

@Roman Groß"Despite following the steps, I am unable to get a result with the Calipso reporting for the gear results. Sorry for my English.

Ok this may be a bug. After manually calculating the true position, this aligns with the result in the true position characteristic.

This worked for the y direction but not the z, for some reason. The position zone is in the YZ, but doesn't give me an answer and shows the characteristic in pink. This gives me an error on the report saying that it is not possible. If I change it to "x," it shows a result.

yes i try all options, the only thing that works is link again this planes to the cd model, that works for now

Have you also tried to uncheck the option below it? (show 3D geometry features without CAD reference)

Well, this is not an easy job for beginner 🙂 I would suggest making a cylindrical section ( in Section menu ) - you will select axis and radius. Select area on mesh and it will make an section. Now select that section and make a circle from it ( fitting principle ) Now you need to obtain somehow other side of those dimensions. You can either use touch caliper or make there a fitting circle and intersection it with theoretical plane to obtain quadrant. Now you can measure as 2point distance.

Hello everyone. I am new to ZEISS INSPECT and I am not an expert, so I would appreciate your guidance with the following measurement problem. I need to measure two distances (marked in Yellow) from a Ø16.4 theoretical exact dimension (TED) circle, shown in green in the attached images. The adjacent blue profile is not conical; it is a toroidal surface. However, I cannot find an option in ZEISS INSPECT to construct or fit a torus, and the available construction appears to allow only a cone. My preferred strategy is to create a nominal cylinder with a diameter of 16.4 mm and then construct a circle from the intersection between this cylinder and the measured toroidal feature. As an alternative, I considered creating a section through the feature and using the intersection of that section with the Ø16.4 cylinder. Unfortunately, I have not been able to identify the appropriate ZEISS INSPECT functions for either method. As a temporary workaround, I created the circle on a fitted cone. This produces a result, but it is not geometrically correct because the actual feature is a torus. The cone fit may therefore shift the reference circle and affect the two distance results. Could you please advise on the correct workflow to: 1. calculate its intersection with the measured toroidal surface, or with a section derived from that surface; 2. construct a circle from the resulting intersection; and 3. use that circle as the reference for the two distance measurements?

UPDATE: I tried the “Show 3D geometry features on CAD model” option in several programs, but in most of them it didn’t work. These annoying elements still appear.

As Martin alluded to, the option you are looking for is likely the "Keep results" checkbox. Uncheck it. That option, and similar CNC alignment options, is located on the "Preassign CNC Start Values" window.

If this is a classic position characteristic the PCM would be getActual("-H- Position1").actual.y

For answer - everytime you move your cal. sphere you have to find it's location via REF. probe. We have original stand like this one. We just rotate by 180° in Z axis to cover rest of probe tips. What configuration do you have?

I would think Zeiss has many requests similar to this and would have a fixture featuring multiple directions just for this scenario but so far no luck...

We have in 45° in both directions, so for calibrating all 5 probe tips we are running also in two stages. Perhaps using another angles would reduce your two positions.

The most oil i see in 2nd tube and 1st filter is oily after usage ( when changing ) 3rd and 4th is not visibly used, but air is better for machine. We are having service in 2y periods - not sure if they are changing machine's filters ( we have some in drawer )

Hello, Currently based on the number of stylus systems we have defined we must take a two-step approach to qualifying all of our probes on each of our Contura's. Step 1: traditional Z+ orientation, qualifies 95% of the probes in our probe system library (rack) Step 2: angle the calibration sphere 90° and repeat for the Z+ probe we have The Question: Is there a method of defining two calibration spheres in a single instance of a Calypso qualifications program in order to learn/place two calibration spheres on the table at one time and run the probe qualification in a single program run cycle without the need to refixture the qualification sphere? Please paste a link if this is already explained somewhere else, could not find anything based on my search words

I understand your argument that the MMR calculation and the Linear Size check are fundamentally different, but unless the software is going to show me exactly which datum and the values that are out of specification, I have nothing else to go off of. I don't even know if it is failing because something is oversized or undersized. A lot of this could most likely be resolved if we were allowed to just use MMR/LMR with the Geometry calculation instead of being forced to use ASME/ISO. Functional testing with 3d scan data is a huge gray area due to the fact that ASME testing is going to be heavily impacted by outliers, but we have no control over the calculation/evaluation parameters once you tell it ASME/ISO. The software forcing a calculation to not calculate due to size violation should not happen - I'm not certain of any mainstream metrology software that does this (especially when compared with Calypso), and Zeiss should release the shackles within Inspect.

Martin, does it keep the oil out of it pretty well? would we only need the MX2-F11 filter for the oil?