All Activity

Memory, however much you have, double it and then some. Open the tower and pour sticks in. Even the Zeiss provided computers come very under powered.

The alignment was from a 3d line along Z axis and I also had another 3d line constructed from two circles paths along the X axis. I noticed that the planar rotation was affecting the direction as the alignment trihedron was inverted to the part in Z axis. I adjusted the planar and it looks like it works fine now. Thanks all!

Thank you for the response! I eventually got a program to cooperate and keep the model along the Y axis. Then my loop would never initialize. I was hitting the thread chamfer. I moved the point to the actual thread and the loops finally initialized. However, whenever I replace the part and give the part a very slight rotation, the thread scan doesn't line up. I added a formula to move in the Y AXIS but was unsuccessful. now using simulation so I don't take up the CMM. base alignment with the thread point.

My guess is your strategy circle path has a start height of 3.2, should be zero. Look at the feature and show the nominal circle and the measured points and see if they line up.

I find it interesting that Zeiss says "NEVER use loctite of any kind on a stylus system!!!" But several other vendors include a card with our stylus order that says you "MUST use loctite on all stylus joints!!!" We dont use it because I have to go with whatever the people in charge of my warranty say, but my gut tells me it would be absolutely fine to use removable thread locker?

Is you base alignment primary from a cylinder? In that case I would rather scan two circles and make 3d line from them.

Hmm, yeah I guess they maybe are. I have the start points at the normal +X/0°, and they go for 380°, so it looks like they go outward from the center of the part at about the 2:00 - 2:15 positions. I'll try to bump it up to like 450° and see if they move. EDIT: Hmm, I guess I default the overscan to 380° on diameters, not the plane, my bad.

Possibly. Only tweak would be 0-380° - always overscan when possible as your worst points are your start and stop points. That Flatness plot for the most part looks amazing. The mag is set to 10,000:1, so everything looks extreme.

Is it just me or does it look like the high and low points are at the start/end points of the scans?

I absolutely am, thought that was clear. I am trying to do what everyone is asking me to try, and seeing what changes in an attempt to understand the software better and where my issue/misunderstanding lies. So let me first clear up a little bit, I am NOT a 'CMM programmer', I AM the entire inspection dept. So using the O-inspect 543, is only like 8% of what I do right now. Last time I touched this machine was probably a month ago. I am the first person at this company that has had any understanding of GD&T, before me their handling of GD&T was "We don't know what those symbols mean, so we just ignore them". My mind was BLOWN when I heard that. I took the Zeiss Basic training, but it was at least 6 months AFTER the training, that I was ever able to use the machine. this is not an ideal situation, I WANT to be better at this than I currently am. Why only the 4 points? Should I not be trying to grab as much of the surfaces as possible to get the best representation at what is going on? I'm not arguing you, just trying to make sense of it all. point spacing = Step width I assume? I'm pretty sure I've done what you suggested and the attachments are of the results. Ask and you shall receive, I am willing to give you guys whatever you need in order to help me figure out where my misunderstanding and issues lie. I am not a 'good enough' kind of person, I don't want to 'know' how to do something, I want to understand it. The monkey knew how to fly to the moon, but didn't understand it. I don't want to be the monkey. I know I have A LOT to learn, I just don't have the time or support where I currently am, no one to bounce ideas off of, which is why there's sometimes a long delay between my responses. Thank you to everyone that is trying to help me.

Your strategy seems plausible. There's only a few things I would change if it were me. I don't know if its possible to establish the center line on the shaft instead of the threads, but that's what I'd be leaning towards. Also, I'd only establish the rotation point on the thread face, instead of your strategy of establishing both Y and rotation using the threads. This is just my theory. It all looks legit otherwise. The way Calypso see's it, if you leave blanks in the base alignment, then it pulls from the start alignment, if there are also blanks in the start alignment, then it pulls from the machine coordinates. Order of precedent is Base Alignment>Start Alignment>machine coordinates.

I've never seen this happen, but my measured position is flipped from the nominal. Has anyone seen this before? For context, I am measuring a cylindrical part on a rotary table. The primary Datums A and B are along the Z axis, measured at 3.200" and -3.200" respectively. I construct a 3d line from the circle paths and use that in my base alignment as my spatial and my X and Y. I was going to just take a fresh manual alignment and see if that addresses the issue, but wanted to see if there was anything I should look at first.

Thank you, i think i found what i shluld: Profile tolerance is set, TE_Profile is set and i still see weird values. Min / Max tolerances: on some sections its both having -0.15 on osome just max has -0.15 I used the update/recalculate, also accept buttons but it not helps. Is there some special order of doing this or what ?

You have to use segments and don't forget to select all segments and click on "measure in group" - that will avoid approach and retract from scan and it will scan whole curve on one go. Only problem is that all measured points will be in first segment. Without grouping it would act like paths in strategy.

@Herbert Spitzer Thanks - after trial i finally found working solution. I had a problem with my curve was scanned in division ( showing "2D curve(16)" ) when i created recalled curve without division i got finally correct measurement without problems. Thanks again for new approach

Good morning everyone, Do you know if there's a way to assign different speeds on the same curve? Thanks a lot.

@Richard Shomaker "tun on display of plot" thats what i was missing. Thanks for the tip!

When I have a program(s) giving me problems like this I will typically try disabling one result/file output at a time until I find the culprit. Have you already turned everything OFF for testing under "Results to File" and Measurement Tab > Multiple Printout?

It happens with every program, big or small. It started all of a sudden. I think it may be related to the fact that I turned on "Results to File" , but that was just for one single program and then I turned it off. I also turned on auto PDF save for some programs, but the lag still occurs for programs that have that turned off. It also happens when only one program is open. Lag is extremely frustrating, especially when you just re-run to pull up a report on results already measured. Thanks (Calypso 2020)

Richard, Thanks for this information! You are correct, the Gear world has its own language!

In addition, you will have to change the tolerance for each .act file you want to evaluate unless this has been changed in newer releases of Gear Pro.

A flatness plot would be very helpful.

Let me know if you resolve this. I have a similar issue.

For the start alignment, I'm using a -z probe and scanning two half circles on either side of the thread. recalling them into a 3d line. with a point in the y axis. I'm setting the base alignment plannar rotation to a point, but this just rotates my model along X axis. Am I missing a step?

The alignment isn't going to change the actuals of the measured plane flatness if you are just doing a recall feature points (they are still the exact same points collected). The alignment will absolutely have an impact on the measured plane flatness because each alignment is telling the hardware where to go to measure data. It seems like right now you are just throwing a lot of stuff at the wall, and trying to see what sticks, and unfortunately you have muddied the water by introducing so many variables, and not controlling any of them. Here's where I would start, and go from there: Create a new measurement plan. Use a stable base alignment: Use the face on the gear as it is the largest as the Spatial Rotation and Z Origin Only take (4) touch points equally spaced around the face (measure as a Plane) Use the ID of the gear as the X, and Y Origin Only take (4) touch points equally spaced around the diameter (measure as a Circle) Use the Keyway as the Planar Rotation Only take (2) touch points (measure as a symmetry point) Loop the Base Alignment 3x Place a break condition of 0.005mm Measure the Plane on the hub face with (2) circle paths (1) inside and (1) outside Scan at 5mm/sec 0.25mm point spacing Filter set to 2.5mm Outlier Elimination set to ±3 sigma (I wouldn't do adjacent points for a Flatness unless necessary) The speed/point spacing/filter might need to be adjusted to match your exact size, but I took a stab in the dark based on how it look.