All Activity

Thanks Mike

Trying to find a way to automatically turn off a specific PiWeb report (lets say its called "report2") based if a program has any "red" features. I have up to 3 multi reports, with one of them just being a graph page if any features are out of tolerance ("red") but only have it outputting as a pdf. Problem is that it will create a blank pdf (just header data) if nothing is out of tolerance. Previous to Piweb, i have used the defineProtocol("#type","presentationProtocol") defineProtocol("#medium","pdf") to automatically turn on the custom printout and pdf. I may be looking in the wrong places to see what i need to do for Piweb. Note: I have Piweb setup to use very little user input ... ie.. I have remove the ability make pdfs, change default rows, etc....

Mike, The CAD file formats that are currently supported can be found below. https://techguide.zeiss.com/en/zeiss-inspect-2026/article/cmd_sys_import_cad.html If you have a suggestion for the software that you would like to share, such as the ability to import .QIF files you can share that with My Voice. https://portal.zeiss.com/my-voice/software/metrology/product/eaafdea8-9296-485d-82c1-cc6d1ca0eca2 After a quick search it looks like there is one entered for the .QIF support that you can add your vote too. https://portal.zeiss.com/my-voice/software/metrology/product/eaafdea8-9296-485d-82c1-cc6d1ca0eca2/request/f5cbc5a1-64d3-4316-98b7-7cdb7f37a3c0 Thank you and have a great day!

I understand that it is possible to import a .QIF file into Calypso - are there plans to extend this capability to ZEISS Inspect Optical 3D Pro? Thanks for your help

Hallo, ne kenn ich nicht bzw. weiss ich nicht genau was du meinst. Ich kann versuchen das nachzustellen, aber dafür müsste ich eine konkretere Vorstellung haben was du genau machst. Digitalisieren verstehe ich noch. Was meinst du genau mit Messreihe? Das was du vorher unter Digitalisieren zusammengefasst hast oder noch mehr? Was meinst du mit Teachen? Erstellung der Auswertungen unter Inspektion? Messung: nochmal ein anderer Begriff. Welche Vorgänge fasst du darunter zusammen? Neuberechnen: Meinst du die Auswertungen (Inspektionen) stehen und du lädst ein neues Mesh und bei der Neuberechnung auf Basis des neuen Mesh stürzt die Software ab? Oder meinst du Polygonisieren? Eventuell auch hilfreich: Mit was für einem Hardwareaufbau arbeitest du?

Hallo, beim Digitalisieren mit der Software 2026 habe ich das folgende Problem. Sobald ich nach einer durchgeführten Messreihe „Teachen“ möchte, bricht die Software zusammen. Obwohl die Messung durchgeführt wird, stürzt die Software ab, wenn sie neu berechnet wird. In der Software 2025 passiert das allerdings nicht! Hat noch jemand dieses Problem und möglicherweise die Lösung dafür? VG Sittik

Try this. play the video. Recording 2026-07-22 064619.mp4

Ironically, we are having trouble with save to MIBA failed errors when generating plots again. Historically this has always gone away when saving files to the C:\ drive instead of to the network. This has started happening recently when saving to the C:\ drive and it is interrupting our pallet runs. 1) Any ideas whats causing this? Could it be our corporate intrusion detection software? Our IT department swears its not but im not convinced... 2) Is there a way to forcibly continue this error so we do not lose our overnight runs? It is heartbreaking and I would rather just be missing one single plot image. The rest of the pallet always completes after clicking OK.

Prealignment is called "pre" because without positoning the mesh to the cad you can`t do anything. If your drawings dont state specific reference systems, you can use the prealignment as it should function as an best-fit alignment, like any other best-fit-alignment you could do as main aligment or a local best-fit you might need if your parts deviation from the ideal geometric form is "larger" and the software can`t tranlate from CAD to mesh. A drawing without a reference system is a flawed/ambigous drawing. In case of new projects I would always contact the customer and ask for a drawing according to the appropriate standards. With old projects this is of course not that easy 🙂 As a suggestion: Try using simple measurements that correspond to your manuell measurement systems before (virtuell calipers for example). That way alignments don`t matter that much.

@Pavan Kumar Chodisetty Hi, we have also many drawings without those specifications, so we are using the most stable elements allowing us to describe where are deviations comming from. We are hot forging company, so what is one cylinder in drawing, we sometimes use only half of cylinder due to die tools. You will need to figure out what will work at your situations.

Hi Both, Thanks for the insights. We are using T-Scan hawk 2 for scanning our parts and we use it for quality inspection of variety of parts (metal and plastic). We have been using the scanner and Zeiss inspect software for less than 6 months now. We had initial e-training from Zeiss on how to use the software and the scanner. Earlier we are measuring manually where possible. The issue is we don't have RPS or datums on any of our drawings. It will be a huge effort to include datums or RPS on the drawings as we have thousands of legacy drawings. In most cases, pre-alignment works fine with some minor deviations on the surface comparison. Sometimes the measurements that deviate from nominal, we are not confident if we are making the right evaluation. So we wanted to understand what is the trade-off between relying primarily on pre-alignment versus modifying our drawings to include datums or RPS to implement main alignment.

A main alignment is always recommended, but may be mandatory in special cases. For example, I once had a part that was mostly cylindrical, but had a bulge at a specific location. I tried to use only pre-alignment with Gauss best fit, but it wasn't enough. You have to consider that Gauss is outlier-tolerant. That means if a large amount of the geometry fits well to the CAD model and only a small amount (the bulge in this case) does not, it is more or less ignored. With my part, this led to a situation where the bulge ended up "somewhere" and didn't match the model most of the time. The fitting algorithm doesn't "notice" that a few degrees more rotation could make an even better fit than it has already achieved. So in situations like this you absolutely need to make an additional main alignment to achieve a stable rotation.

I have a problem on 2025 version. Are you using 2026? I was trying every possible combination for achieving same python code, but i can not replicate your code. Is your code reporting errors? RequestError: GAPP-0013: Command parameter error. The parameter specification is unknown.

Turn down your probing dynamics, if the setup isn't very rigid, it will be vibrating on the initial hit. Also pay attention that you have no filter applied - since you are performing linear scans, you will need to use wavelength instead of UPR.

How can I change decimal spaces within the Calypso software?

I would say pull will be better. Due torque of probe tip weight will tip go down, so pulling would help instead of a push. But counter weight could help more. Is it needed to be measured by scan? Couldn't it be measured from both sides so you could have shorter probe?

same here. Another thing I did with the old GDT was make a theoretical 3d line for the best fit bolt pattern (or pattern of features) that is nominal 0 to the best fit, then in position characteristic report to A|B + Theo line -C- for example .. same difference. Ive used both ways.

Howdy, I have a 425mm long probe mounted horizontally. Ive been getting some weird repeatability issues on this bore and im looking for some advice on how to make this program more repeatable. The length of the measured bore is around 337mm long and we have to use a line scan for the given geometry. You can see the crest at the end of the bore indicated by a 20X mag of points and the cylindricity plot. Every time i run the program the crest is either in a different location radially or not there at all. Any ideas of what could be causing this and how to avoid it. Scanning direction is pulling (is it more stable to scan in a push direction?) at 7mm/s DK10 L425 Contura Vast XTR.

@Martin Jánský That is what I use to bulk edit dimensions: gom.script.sys.edit_creation_parameters ( element=gom.app.project.inspection['ITEM_125_2_TP'], specification={ 'combination_specification': 'SZ', 'datum_system': { 'datum_element': gom.app.project.actual_elements['A'] }, 'dimension_reference': gom.app.project.inspection['CYL_125.GG'], 'elements': [gom.ActualReference (gom.app.project.inspection['CYL_125'])], 'material_condition': '(M)', 'theoretically_exact_dimensions': { 'position_1': 1.528034632e-06 }, 'use_bonus_tolerance': True, 'use_pure_geometry': True, 'zone_modifier': 'cylindrical', 'zone_size': 10.0 }, tolerance=10.0) You can see I set the tolernace to 10mm..but the feature after running this script will not change the tolerance. Profiles and Position tolerances won't take the change, but distances and diameters will accept the change.

@Richard Shomaker Love that! Thank you so much for that tip. I'm eagerly waiting for the next opportunity I get to try that out 🤓

@Ivan Servin.2 I haven't ran into a particular case of common symmetry planes, but a workaround you could do would be to create the position of each symmetry plane (to say your A B DRF), set it to a SIMREQ, then go to Resources - Utilities - GDT Best-Fit - Select one of the Positions, now you can use that Alignment as your A B C alignment. I've done this for complicated DRFs, and it works wonders. 🙂

@Jack Nelson.2 Completely agree and happy to help! The common datum is a great addition, but there are some current limitations that I'm hoping will be addressed in the near future. I had a similar part, but instead of holes, the bolt pattern was symmetry planes. Despite the common datum option allowing planes, it was unhappy about the symmetry planes and did not compute an answer. I had to use the legacy method for this.

I followed the steps in the link and found that the "CMM Network" connection on my PC was disabled, for reasons unknown at this time. I re-enabled it and Calypso connected as usual, it seems to be back to normal. Thank you enormously.

Hello, Thank you for the detailed screenshots. From what I can see, the CAD model is visible in the section view within the workspace, but the CAD contour is not being included when the report page is exported as a video. The exported video appears to contain only the volume section data. Looking at the images, I would lean toward this being either a limitation of the video renderer or a defect in the export process rather than a project setup issue.

Hello, From what I've seen, the biggest benefits for CT volume analysis come from ample RAM, fast NVMe storage, and a GPU with sufficient VRAM. I'm not aware of any published data showing significant gains from NVLink or pooled GPU memory, and many workloads appear to utilize a single GPU.