All Activity

Thank you for all the feedbacks! I would share the drawing if I could but the replies helped clarify the issue a lot.

As replied in another thread - in this table where is (M) it's calculated statistical value just for SPC purposes - real value is without (M) but your tolerance is increased. (M) value can be "ZERO" when you have allout as "0 (M)" because of formula ( can be found in forum ) - in that formula is final step a multiplying of base tolerance.

in this example my position tolerance is .0000(M) my diameter is .099 +/-.003 with an actual of .097734. The result before MMC is .002709 and that was adjusted down to below .0000? is that correct?

but if the hole size is under the nominal, there should not be a change in the position right? so if your nominal hole size is 100 and the hole size is 99, if the position is .001 without MMC shouldn't if be .001 with it?

Yes, the surfaces are highlighted on the new model. I appreciate you helping out and I'll try the double cad from solidworks. I've always hated having to keep track of 2 programs and 2 reports for a part. Never know who's going to run these parts again and I'm never sure about running someone else's program and knowing I'm not missing anything. Some days I'm really confident in my programming abilities and parts like these knock me way down.

@Hector Soto, do the entities listed in the surfaces window (331 2, 340 2, etc.) highlight on the new model when you click on their names in the features window? Or, do surfaces on the previous model highlight? I'm trying to get an understanding of root cause. The surfaces of interest on the new model should become highlighted when you click the surface/magnifying glass icon and also when you select them individually in the surfaces list. Your frustration is understandable. Best practice in Calypso, which most programmers stick with, is to use separate measurement plans for separate part setups. One other option, if it's value-added to keep both models in the same measurement plan, would be to create a combined model of both setups in a design software such as Solidworks and then export them as a multi-body ACIS (.sat). Deleting the existing models and importing a multi-body .sat may prevent your current surface association issue.

I am trying to check a Perpendicularity and position using MMC. As I understand MMC, it allows extra tolerance when the diameter is larger than nominal size. In the example above the actual diameter is smaller than nominal yet the MMC position is almost .004 under the actual position. How is this possible, what have I done wrong?

the (M) is not the MMC calculation i believe it just for statistics, you can just ignore it. you can search it on the forum and find a few posts to understand it. if you had bonus tolerance with MMC it would be calculated into the tolerance for the original position.

It's working not from nominal but from minimal/maximal size. (M) on hole will get no bonus on min. diameter and full bonus on max. diameter. (L) on hole will get no bonus on max. diameter and full bonus on min. diameter. On shaft it's inverted.

I am trying to check a Perpendicularity and position using MMC. As I understand MMC, it allows extra tolerance when the diameter is larger than nominal size. In the example above the actual diameter is smaller than nominal yet the MMC position is almost .004 under the actual position. How is this possible, what have I done wrong?

These also did not work. I'm close to throwing in the towel and just creating a separate program for the bottom side. This has been beyond frustrating.

ooooof .....'could lead to incorrect results'....

Are you trying to make your Excel file a template for when Calypso exports to Excel?

Dark mode tetris? Hell yeah.

I've made this working by having two models placed same as a physical fixture. But that means you can not have overlaping models, so working area is bigger as for two parts. Now you have to go to join those two models as one. The easiest method is repairing model - this will join them as one CAD model, now it will know what is workpiece and FF will work. Only one thing - do a secondary alignment on a secondary fixture.

Here is a video tutorial on how to update to a 2026 license through the portal. https://portal.zeiss.com/iqr-academy/video/2No-uamZaJuV99yngepcDh Also a PDF on the license manager. https://dcc-assets.zeiss.com/iqs/[Customer]_Licensemanager_2.0_Instructions_EN_v1.1.pdf

Thank you for the response, I got a hold of Zeiss, and they are saying since this is re-occurring, it may be an issue with the board inside the RDS cage...whatever that means. But usually, I can restart and it will connect or in a couple cases I have had to just delete the probe data and reconfigure the settings. But I do appreciate the feedback, Marcel.

@Hector Soto, @Zen Cat is absolutely correct. The Free Form Surface (FFS) feature is unique in Calypso in that it is defined solely from the CAD model hierarchy. You're on the right path in troubleshooting. Focus on that window on the right side of the feature window underneath the trash can icon. This is the "surfaces" window. That is where surfaces from the CAD hierarchy will populate to show where the FFS is getting its nominals. There are a couple of things to try. First, make the model surfaces viewable. Then, click once on the icon in the FFS that looks like a surface with a magnifying glass. That activates the "surface picker." Then, click on the surfaces in the *second model,* to the right of your first model. You should see those surfaces populate in the surfaces window. If any unintentional surfaces populate in the surfaces window, click on them in the list and then click on the trash can icon directly above the surfaces window. This may be enough, or you may need to also you the "CAD model comparison" function, which is listed in the menu bar under "CAD." That function can be a way to attach features to a CAD model retroactively. One other sidepoint: make sure to save the measurement plan after you've imported the new model. That helps Calypso write the model to the measurement plan. Keep us posted on your progress. I'm interested to hear how this turns out for you.

This did not work. It put the points in the base alignment again.

I recently had that same error on a straight line. I left it as a 2D curve and thought Calypso was just giving me a dumb warning message. When it came to physically measuring the curve, it didn't calculate any results. 3D curve worked. Just a heads up.

Problem solved. After aligning the Datasets ,just needed to copy the volume regions inside the same Part and then the Substraction works. Its funny that Zeiss Inspekt only allows some operations to be done in a specific way. Would be nice that the software were more flexible. If someone need further help related to the subject, feel free to contact me. Thank DWG for support with the alignment. Have a nice weekend.

wie Zen Cat schreibt, verwende für das Basissystem andere Messelemente, und erstelle anschließend ein Koordinatensystem aus deiner zurückgerufenen Ebene

Yup, stepped cylinder with ot (mce) is right for datum in ISO in this case

I tried it out and i also run into a problem 🫣 Is this the problem you get with MRR? "Every Element needs exactly one dimension of size for MRR" Found the solution: You need to build the linear size in a "special way".

ISO 2692 up to 2014 version is saying, when there is maximum material requirement on tolerated features, it changes them to combined zone. I cannot find exact paragraph in 2014, so please, if someone cares to share. And I'm unsure how this changed in 2021 release, except that it forces explicit use of SZ and CZ. EDIT: Paragraph 4.2.1, note 4 in 2014 version apparently