All Activity

I'm looking for this too.

How big is magnification? 200? I rather use cylinders than those points. So all features are having correct nominal vector and same feature's alignment, right?

Well, for measuring distance, like thickness you create symmetry plane from oposing planes. Then use GD&T. BUT it won't work for planes with same direction, like depth and it won't work on planes, where actuals are not against each other. For measuring distance i am usually using a fitting point and projected distance. For fitting point - nominal can be clicked on CAD model or by using "Restore Point Selection" from wanted plane. Then show actual mesh, again fitting point - use "Restore Point Selection" on actual Plane - this will make actual point. Now just link nominal with actual ( assign measuring principle - Link to actual element. You can also use just nominal point and "Refferenced construction". I still see, that Inspect and Calypso are not equal. One do somenthing better than the other. Like those measurements, or like on my last post - symmetry point won't allow you (M) while Calypso can.

They're just angle characteristics. The cad eval is enabled with tolerance Windows. The angle is oot. So the top image results are correct. I was expecting the top image to look like the bottom image.

I might be wrong in my understanding of how different software calculate the distance between planes, but for me in Calypso it is pretty straight forward to use a Caliper distance or other characteristic to determine the distance between the average center points of two planes. But how can I do this in Zeiss Inspect? I have seen several ways to measure the distance between two planes, but they all give different results. So the question stands: how do I measure the distance between the average center points of two planes? Or please correct me if I'm looking at this problem wrongly. Thanks,

@Pat Bryant Are you sure this formula is correct? This "^" means beginning of text and "$" means end of text - i don't think using it twice is correct. Or what is your goal and what it is doing and should not? This is some sort of regex, so you can try some online testers for that - perhaps some will fit into PiWeb usage.

That "constrained" picture seems like wrong nominal vector - that second picture is not showing correct 45° I would believe that "non-constrained" is constrained. How you got to show this image. By "Form" or profile?

Hi, been awhile since I worked with cams, but i recall that most CMM's weren't quite accurate enough for cam lobe inspections. Data wasn't as clean as we needed so we ended up buying an Adcole system specifically for cam lobe profiles and doing reverse engineering on cam lobe profiles. I cannot to much specifically on using the cam functions within Calypso thou.

Back to the original topic of the thread: This.

Back to the original topic of the thread: This

OK I'm hoping someone else jumps in here because I don't remember the whole thing: This chunk of code {^((?!\.\(M|L\)|\^Diameter For).)*$} gets pasted into the piweb designer. I can't remember exactly what to do with it to make it work but it does remove those lines (as well as MMC / LMC lines that everybody hates).

I'm having issue hiding multiple cad files during planner simulation. I have one program for different operations, but when I run planner with cads hidden in the hierarchy it still shows all the cad files with shows collision all over the place. I can go around and troubleshoot the collision, but it would be much easier if calypso could hide only the specified cad during simulation. Does anyone has a solution for this issue?

@MPA Industrial CT Scan Artifacts in Multi-Material Components Overview Industrial computed tomography (CT) inspections performed on complex components often include materials with significantly different densities, atomic numbers, and X-ray attenuation characteristics. When materials such as aluminum, steel, titanium, tungsten, plastics, elastomers, or composites are present in the same scan volume, artifact formation can occur even when the scanner is operating correctly. Why Artifacts Occur CT reconstruction assumes that X-ray attenuation measurements remain consistent throughout the rotational scan. High-density materials absorb substantially more X-ray energy than low-density materials, producing non-linear attenuation effects that violate ideal reconstruction assumptions. Beam Hardening Lower energy photons are preferentially absorbed as the X-ray beam passes through dense material. The remaining beam becomes more energetic, resulting in beam hardening. Common symptoms include dark bands, cupping artifacts, false dimensional edges, and density gradients around dense features. Photon Starvation In regions where thick or high-density material blocks much of the X-ray flux, too few photons reach the detector. Reconstruction algorithms amplify the resulting noise, creating streaks and star-shaped artifacts between dense features. Scatter Effects Scattered radiation reaching the detector introduces incorrect intensity measurements, reducing contrast and creating haze, streaking, and edge distortions. Metal and High Contrast Artifacts Sharp transitions between materials of vastly different attenuation levels can generate reconstruction errors, partial-volume effects, and edge overshoot artifacts that appear as bright or dark streaks. Physical Filters Physical pre-filters made from materials such as copper, tin, or aluminum are commonly placed in the beam path. These filters remove low-energy photons before they enter the part, reducing beam hardening and improving consistency when scanning dissimilar materials. Digital Correction Methods Zeiss Inspect X-Ray Professional provides correction tools including beam hardening compensation, ring artifact reduction, detector normalization, noise filtering, and optimized reconstruction settings. These algorithms reduce systematic errors before and during volume reconstruction. Best Practices Use the highest practical tube voltage, select appropriate physical filtration, optimize exposure time, increase projection count, minimize detector saturation, and orient dense materials to reduce extreme attenuation paths. Reconstruction parameters should be validated using representative production components. Summary Artifacts are a natural consequence of X-ray physics when dissimilar-density materials are scanned together. Understanding beam hardening, photon starvation, scattering, partial-volume effects, and detector limitations allows inspection laboratories to minimize artifacts and obtain cleaner, more reliable CT data.

I have, and match the CMM and Keyence results. And the customer's results. Our engineers think the planes need to be constrained. Even though I've never had to constrain a plane before. I'm scanning and evaluating this thing muuuuultiple ways. The results are always similar. Part of me want's to believe the engineer because the cad eval shows the points within their zones. But constraining the features, and the result is conforming. But the eval looks non-conforming. However earlier this week, Jeff informed me about angles showing form instead of result. That would mean the form is good and the measurement is accurate? And Marcel was saying 'when constraining the angled features, the form is compared to the alignment.' So the constrained view is what the part looks like? buuuut measures the angle in tolerance. non-constrained: constrained:

I would look at zoom level in the CAD Evaluation. 0.100 is ten times 1.000

Put the part on a comparator. If its what engineering states, 45°, you are wrong If its nearly your results, you are correct. End of story. Your first two graphs (bar graphs) tells me there are issues with the middle plane and the plane in the lower bar graph image that could contribute to the results you get off the CMM.

anyone have a example or a phython script that can be shared?

im not sure if this works but you can try this.. This disables air-scanning errors!!

I understand now. I have never seen this before. Out of curiosity, how do you align it?

Thank you i finnaly found out the option that hide this crap..

I'm not at my workstation but it's something line CAD/Settings/Geometry/ and uncheck everything except the alignments. This is my preference but you can work with these checkboxes. I think the one you're looking for is like "show all 3d features on CAD" That plane won't disappear until you click away from it and back on it. Sometimes they are persistent. When this happens, use the button underneath the CAD window "Show all geometric features" and then toggle back to "Show CAD" I hate these things.

im make the aligments of cad models before start the program i use calypso and save them separatly then i import them. no issues. TO AVOID MERGING THE CAD MODELS - SEE THE IMAGE!! Hope this help

Hi guys, does anyone know of a way to permanently remove these elements that Calypso creates and that are visible in the CAD window? Even after deleting them using Modify CAD Entities and saving the program, they reappear when I reopen it and remain visible in the CAD window. Is there a way to remove them permanently? Im using Calypso 2025 SP4 V 8.0.16, this is a issue i have in all V8 releases i dont know if in older versions this is a issue.

Hallo Micha, ich habe das grad mal nachgestellt und so wie es aussieht scheint es tatsächlich ein BUG im CALYPSO zu sein. Im Prüfmerkmal wird es bei mir schon nicht korrekt angezeigt. Ich werde einen BUG dazu bei der Entwicklung einstellen, sobald ich eine Rückmeldung erhalte, gebe ich dir hier ein Update! Gruß Marcel

Calypso tries to merge all your geometry into "one model" in a way that is very frustrating. While it *appears* to have the concept of multiple models stored in a hierarchy, but they are not actually separate... It also has flags for which parts are measured and which parts are fixtures, but I cannot figure out how it works and it is always problematic to do anything other than "load one model at a time" Even worse, some of the changes to your model are done "Live" (without hitting "Save")