All Activity

I would check that program in programming to see differences. There can be chance they are not the same

I didn’t see the Datum C question. It’s drawn as the side of that one surface, but you need to double check the nominals and also try to crawl into the head of the engineer. 😂

I am not sure if my method is OK, but i am using a point and at strategy i use point cloud, where you define radius, which will be then scanned. Also in drawings where datum C is exactly at arrow of dimension it will define symmetry - at this case it looks like datum C is only one side. I would rather see 2D drawing than this - datum B is not well defined - it calls for points in defined radius, but it's on a hole.

@Jason Knox You should use AutoRun then. AutoRun is for only executing programs that are configured into the AutoRun setup.

I believe that the biggest difference with projection is the order in which it is set, so make sure you aren’t actually projecting the plane to the cylinder.

Please show a screenshot of the planes from the main geometry side as well as the strategies, and the evaluation side.

Seems like you are having stored files ( programs and pictures ) on network drive, or location of those files are not accessible

Those are mainly used for the machining fixture construction. You could just measure tiny planes, and use the circle path on a plane option to scan at the 10mm diameter as well as one maybe just outboard of the diameter. Then a recall feature points from the plane to the point at the nominal location should net you the same result as if you had just used the point set function inside of the point.

I have 3 angles that won't calculate and are purpled. When I go to the feature of the plane, the strategy and evaluation are correct, and I can run the feature and the probe traces it normally, but it will not resolve the issue. When I click the polyline path of the plane feature it is showing points taken as normal.

Running into an issue with Auto Run. All boxes on my screen appear in red. In addition, I cannot select picture and have the program run. FYI, I have all the user privileges in Auto Run.

I am interested in this, but i wonder how to implement it with my setup. We currently still use MCC. We will be switching to Cimco. The way we run programs, I wish i could utilize autorun. However, when a run completes, the operator will check the items that came out bad for dirt, burrs and such and then re run the failed items to verify if they are actually out or if the burr or debris caused the bad reading. (if there is a way to do this in autorun, I am all ears) What i am trying to prevent is, we have an operator, that even though we have said don't do this, they will still manipulate probe points sometimes and get things good. I do not want the operators doing this. I can block them from saving with a user account that they already have but they are able to manipulate probe points/paths and rerun but then close with no save. What is your thoughts on the best way to stop this with the options given or does someone have another option or way of doing things? Thank you in advance.

Hello all, I could not figure out why the nominal keep changing. I have 2 programs one in the server and another one on the desktop and both has part program, but when I ran both and compared the nominal, I got different results with nominal calculation. Please see reports below. Thank you.

What is the difference between an intersection and a projection of a cylinder onto a plane? A program I am working on is using a projection to a plane to get the true position of a bore at a compound angle. I have not seen that before, and personally would have used an intersection to said plane. I ask because I get very different results when using one vs the other.

Hello Zeiss Community! Trying to set up an RPS alignment, and this drawing is making it difficult. From my limited knowledge, the proper way to gather the points is to use a point set measurement. However, two of these points are over bores, and a third point is actually a symmetry? I am unsure how to gather these points in a way that is best practice and repeatable. Another thing I thought of was to maybe represent these datums as a Plane/line/point, using the features, instead of a true RPS. Not sure what the best move is. Images attached. B2 is over another hole, just in the X=108 direction. A1~A3 all make sense, C confuses me, I think it's a symmetry point?

@Chris Verrill I still don't have a resolution to this and just noticed you replied so I see it isn't just me. I just opened a ticket with Zeiss this morning to see if they might have any idea why or how to resolve this. I will update here if I get anything back from them. Thanks for letting me know you had the same problem!

Along those lines Jason from experience with a lot of active R/T scanning is : If you start a passive R/T program, and the previous part was an active R/T scan program, and it update the R/T cal data, etc; if the part was bad or set up not so well, the R/T value could be high and therefore subsequently skew the data in the passive program; that's why its' recommended freshly calibrating the r/t prior for most of those programs - you could also use PCM to check if current R/T data is 'too high' etc.

Most of the programs are currently set up as passive use of the table. There are a couple that use active for one feature. But i think all programs are set to active. I think right now the plan is to keep it like that for the most part. Maybe we could start to implement more active measurements later as we start to clean up some of the programs and probes. There are several setups of probes that are mirror opposites or doubles and instead of rotating the table they change the probe. This will be one of the items we will be changing soon. I was told today by one of the operators that they have been getting bad results after several runs and then they will requalify the rotary and the parts will measure in tolerance again. Now, I haven't seen the reports yet so i don't know how in is in and how out is out. Lots of things to work on and learn for sure

Thank you everyone for your valuable feedback infact it worked

I agree with Jeff. I honestly use the base alignment more as a start alignment. I never use it in any characteristics. I'd just use one of the holes for C datum for the base alignment, then refine it properly later.

Just in case you're still viewing this thread, how would I go about measuring this in calypso? I basically understand what you're implying I'm just not sure how to go about measuring it.

Okay thanks very much for your input. It's appreciated...

I have a weird frustrating issue with GearPro, want to see if anyone else if seeing the same thing. For years I've stitched my GearPro reports to the end of my Calypso reports using PDF all (using GhostScript) save in Calypso. Never had any issues with it. Recently, I've had a couple of programs that are failing to stitch together. Its saving just the Calypso reports. Even more frustrating, its not entirely repeatable. It seems to happen more often on all tooth scans (reports are larger maybe causing issue?). Also, if I restart Calypso and GearPro it will almost always correctly stitch the first one just find, but subsequent runs may not stitch. I know this isn't necessarily a GearPro issue, but has anyone seen this before?

Hi @James Bates I'm curious: why do you need to set up a rotational pattern for the base alignment? The purpose of a base alignment is primarily to facilitate navigation of your probing system and provide basic stability for the measurement plan. Typically, secondary alignments and features utilize rotational patterns for position characteristics.

you're definitely on the right path, just remember Calypso uses it's own version of small talk programming language. Your code appears right for python and similar languages, I haven't yet got GPT to spit out any useable smalltalk code for Calypso. I no longer have PCM access directly otherwise I would test it out for you.

Understandable issues, I wish there was a tool that could help you with this but I can't think of any. With that many operators maybe a simple solution is just having a procedure in place where someone other than the one who assembled the styli system does a quick double check of the tightness before okaying it for use. That won't get rid of all the issues but it may mitigate them enough to be in at an acceptable level.