All Activity

Okay now i really now what you meant, i will try it and let you know if it has worked for me. Thanks for the help of you two

@Daniel Scott, thanks for sharing. Multisensor metrology is an outstanding pairing to the part geometries you mentioned. As far as LineScan and ATOS, I encourage you to carefully investigate their ability to scan steel and aluminum, especially if you don't want to have to spray your parts before measuring them. You may also want to consider a DotScan sensor mounted on a Contura or similar CMM. The chromatic confocal sensor handles shiny parts well and scans very fast. It excels at surface profiles.

Long story short, our 2000s Vista bit the dust (control board is fried) and we're not sure where to go to scrap it. Where do you take used CMMs for either salvage or parting? We are based in West Michigan.

Glad I got them to invest in the FF option. We have a family of steel and aluminum parts that have full surface profiles all around the exterior. We've been comparing various vision systems from other manufacturers and even ATOS, and some of our guys saw the hybrid probe/vision CMMs at IMTS which pointed us this direction.

Never really had issues with installing updates themselves. It's just that the last release was pretty buggy at the start. Not even counting the issues with simulation, there was the weird bug slowing every plan by 30%. I used to install new Calypso version almost immediately after it was released, and had no major issues, but that 2025 memory is holding me back 😉

How do we get the computed MMC tolerance + bonus, AND the computed value to show after sending results to file. We get neither. The actual tolerance shows but not the actual data with bonus.

I really think some of this is delusional. The upgrades have been pretty smooth and solid lately. We manage 8 machines and an offline seat and have almost no issues.

Yeah, we switched to 2024 about 9 months ago, before I was here, and IT has sworn that we will never upgrade again. I'm sure it will blow over eventually. I would like to be on 2026 by 2030

I made a post about this a while ago. I'm seeing more and more designers use dynamic profile. This will become a big deal sooner rather than later.

Is there really still no dynamic profile modifier?

Hello Nanno!, Thank you very much for your help with my question. The part was scanned with a Hexagon Romer Absolute Arm 85, and the scan software was PolyWorks. I only use ZEISS INSPECT 2026 for the inspection. Since the scans do not come from a ZEISS system, I understand that combining measurement series is not an option for me. I will try to merge the two scans in PolyWorks first and then import the single mesh into ZEISS INSPECT. If that does not work, I will test the trial of the Professional version. Best regards, Anu

It used to be if your stylus failed qualification the results element would return the value of the previous sigma information. Is it still that way?

Hi Anu, if you have two separate meshes like STL, it is not possible to combine them with the free version of Inspect. The professional version supports multipart projects. Here you could align the meshes using the markers and other features, then combine them after stitching (ZEISS Quality Tech Guide) or some other mesh processing. You might try the trial version of professional first for this. Do you scan the parts with Inspect? Then you could combine the measurement series in one project, which will also result in a smoother result, because the measurement series are polygonized together. (ZEISS Quality Tech Guide) The measurements are also transformed accurately by reference points with this method. Nanno

Hi Robert, i could reproduce the error by switching to different inspections with an open simulation, without even connecting to another CMM via the settings, i will create a BUG for development! Thanks for the help! Best Regards Marcel

Hi Sven, does this exception appear when you open the Basesystem? This issue is reported in 8.0 and is solved for the upcoming 8.0.20 Servicepack, it might be that the same problem is within 8.4 and should be fixed with the next Patch Version. Best Regards Marcel

Hello, I am using ZEISS INSPECT 2026 (free version) and need help merging two scans of one part into a single mesh. The part was too long to scan in one go, so I scanned it in two sections and have two STL files. The scans overlap in the middle of the part. In the overlap I placed four magnetic letter markers (just physical markings), one on each side, and they are visible in both STL files. Goal: one complete, accurate mesh of the whole part.

Hi Goce, How to best fit those points to the CAD after importing? Is there a way? What is the proper work process? the normal Local Best-Fit alignment works, if you select points of your point cloud like you would on a mesh, for example right click -> select all points. The point cloud might need to be aligned by an inital alignment like 3-2-1 first to get a realistic search distance in the best-fit. Also how can I re-align the CAD to different position in space? There is a catetogy "single element transformation" under operations -> alignment, or you chose another coordinate sytem during CAD import. The single element transformations are not parametric like an alignment from mesh to cad and should be used at first in the project because it will later break dependencies of elements. Example "Set matrix": ZEISS Quality Tech Guide Is there a way to polygonise this type of point cloud? There is a function for this: Polygonize Point Cloud If the point cloud is polygonized the workflow is like with a mesh (STL, polygonized from ATOS, ...) If you work with Airfoil inspections, there is an App with CMM workspace available, which sets up CMM data for inspection with Airfoil Inspection: CMM data preparation Nanno

Hi, One option to get this immediately would be to use linear sizes for the inspection of cylinders or other features of size. Either with normal labels or with the 3D labels. It has also the benefit that your results are in conformance with the international ISO-GPS or the american ASME standards. Then it simply does not matter anymore what is set at the fitting element as the software computes everything automatically for you in accordance to the selected standards and the needed association (fitting) method. The following methods are available in linear sizes (named either according to ISO 14405-1, if selected, or based on ASME Y14.5)

A little bit of information before my question, I am using a spectrum CMM with a passive Vast XXT with rotating head, my reference sphere is at 180 for angle 0 for tilt and it positioned as close to center as I can get. I am also running calypso 2019. I am attempting to set up a program to automatically qualify my probes using the probing system qualifications characteristic, I have to manually put on and take off my master probe to get reference sphere location due to rack space limitations. Then I run the program, it will do my first probe a 3mmx50mm no problem but then it will attempt to do all my other probes, and it will hit a limit switch usually on my X axis sometimes Z. I'm stuck on what I need to change or if there is another way of doing this.

It does happen that it's needed. We have a customer from chip making industry that wants 5 micron runouts on entry radius - thru hole - exit radius. Its needed for guiding a beam thru the device.

wish zeiss would build something in natively, I mean what year is it ? sheesh

I found only this via python

I'd probably also suggest to use Curve results points as well.

Is there an easier way? Unfortunately not at this moment.

We've got the FixAssist. It's amazing how often it can't help.