All Activity

Hi everyone, I've been running into an issue quite frequently when updating the description in my app's edit view. Every time I make a change and try to save, metainfo.json gets completely wiped out and emptied, which causes the save process to fail. Has anyone encountered a similar bug, or does anyone have insights on why metainfo.json might be getting cleared on save and how to resolve it? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

If you display all the cylinder sections exclusively you should be able to select the desired parts with the lasso function and construct a cylinder from the selection. To create the cylinder you should use "fitting element" instead of "auto cylinder" and then "referenced construction" as the measuring principle. Note however that you can't control point density with this method. Also, Inspect doesn't provide the same filter and outlier routines as Calypso does.

I understand the issue you're facing. Using my method, we were actually able to help a client in the medical sector with an implant; we discovered that their competitor had been using the wrong tool insert—specifically, the internal radius within the thread profile was too small. What does your supplier have to say about this? Can they provide you with the tool so it can be measured? Are they able to offer you any support?

Yes only 1 workpiece should be activated if you have several models that are with the workpiece when you extrat elements the models will be merged

We use this specific one all the time, very low shrinkage also a good bit cheaper than reprorubber

Right click here on them to change them into not workpiece (blue is workpiece). Should prevent merging.

That is disappointing and sad. My workaround currently is deleting and reloading the CAD model. Super-efficient.

They make mold material with extremely low shrinkage rates.

I was able to compare ATOS 5 vs Accura on same part using curves. I've exported nominal points from curve into csv and then imported into Inspect. Then i did intersection with mesh and from those points i did discreet cloud point. Then i did surface profile and instead of mesh i've selected this cloud - result differed 0,01mm on profile ( doubled worst devaiation - so 0,005mm ). I also tried to make 1:1 base alignment - so i was pretty satisfied with result ( having in mind part is sand blasted and was not used any spray ).

I'm doing tests to see the difference between Zeiss Inspect and Calypso calculations, so I'm wondering if I can replicate such Calypso evaluation methods like lines on the cylinder, or several circle sections. For example, I created the cylinder lines from two perpendicular, longitudinal sections, and then I created the circle sections with multisection. From the circles I can calculate diameter, but I don't know how to take the combined arithmetic mean of all of them, or create a cylinder from them. Also, I don't know how to extract a diameter or cylinder form the created lines. Is this possible at all? Or is it recommended to stay with the simple cylinder creation - diameter check?

Calypso will merge your entire model into one model the second you try to capture geometry from it. The only sane way is to assume it will be merged. (I have been told you can exempt things from merging by setting the Workpiece/Workarea flag but I cannot seem to figure it out..... )

Here is what i do for editing part of a curve: make new curve with correct model remove all points except for needed area open old curve and remove points from needed area import new points from curve into old curve. cut and paste new points into correct position. I am not sure if you can open new curve and copy points and then past into another curve. For removing and point modifying you click "Arrow" button under clearance group "CP +Z" Then you have to modify segment data ( i recommend showing all points with numbers ). Also note - if you have masked points, then you have to disable it before point modification.

ATOS 5 is about 880mm acording to Gemini ATOS 5 Airfoil is about 530mm ATOS 5X i also about 880mm So you may be out of focus on this. Airfoil has ability to better scan sharp turbine blades - i would suggest to try contacting ZEISS or reseller and ask for presentation or visit a company to show what types of part it is capable of measuring. Also note to calculate correct measurement volume - it can be bought later, but switching between them means new calibration and more time, than using correct volume. There is also version of ScanBox, which can be automatized with better control of angle scan of certain area.

I have a program that has a 3-D scan of the perimeter of the part that has an update to its configuration. How do I change the segment that is changed in the 3-D Curve feature? The attached screenshot is showing the nominal points of the old version and the cad model of the updated. The program was written by a colleague in Germany who is not available for assistance. Thank you!

I have read about molds, but i fear about shrinkage - customer stated NOK with thread caliper, our caliper was on edge but ok. But our machining is done by 3rd party, so we need some measurement aand numbers to show - they are stubborn 😞

Sorry, but this is not reliable - we are facing potential problem, where thread caliper is not fitting ( small thread ). So we need to measure thread directly - also part itself is a little problematic how to catch thread axis - part putted on a side to have thread in +Z will have tilt about 1° due draft angles. For measuring thread position it's already used like that ( bigger sphere with self centering into thread )

You can also do this by modifying a report, but it is limited on what header fields get saved into the output. https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=513250

Please follow these steps: Open PiWeb Reporting Plus Inside of PiWeb Reporting Plus, the Columns on the Left Hand side are your measurement plans. You can scroll to find the one you are looking for, or you can search for it in the top left window. Please scroll down and find the measurement plan you are looking for – select it. Right click on the measurement plan, and select Show measurements. When the Edit measurements dialogue opens, either select all the data (as shown) or shift click the particular data set you are looking for (you will see time stamps) Once your data set is selected, click on the measured values button as shown below. When the Measured value dialogue is open, first make sure “Show measurement attributes” and “Show characteristic attributes” are turned on – this is a one time thing, so the next time you select data they will already be turned on. Click on the Export measured value table button as shown below. It will prompt you asking where you want to save the data. You will need to know how to use PivotTables inside of Excel. Let me know of any issues or concerns.

I have had some success using molds of internal threads and then checking them on a vision system or optical comparator. Depending on how small and class of thread you are working with it may be a lower cost option and you may be able to avoid destructive testing on parts. I have passed government first article inspections by basically digitally recreating the three-wire method on our vision system and measuring the thread mold. Here is the mold kit we use but there may be much more cost effective options. Here is kind of a basic how-to on how to get started using molds for threads measurements.

I'm coming across an odd bug, not sure if others have encountered it. I have a model assembly. In the hierarchy, I can see all the individual models, and I have the ability to hide or reveal any component I want. However, when I use the CAD-create feature tool, Calypso merges everything into one model. Is there a workaround? Calypso 2025 version 8.0.08

there is another alternative son the link bellow https://www.victoryprogramming.com/post/calypso-tip-7-naming-conventions-2-stylus-systems

Hi, looks like the triple scan has a shorter working distance. Do you have space left to bring the sensor further up on that thing?

This is why the new position characteristic makes you select ASME/ISO/LOOSE. It is automatically ensuring compliance with the selected standard and at ALL OTHER TIMES you must account for evaluation manually

My Monday brain led me astray of your question.

I use a similar naming convention on RDS and XT, XTR sensors. Only one caveat, the number one stylus would be 1 A0B0 (Using your examples), number 2 "2 A90B-65". Or your naming: 1 0_0 2 90_-65 Basically, just adding the stylus number indicating the stylus used within Calypso (Calypso doesn't care about the name, it's all about the index number). I have not had any issues with measuring results or qualification.