All Activity

Hi Johnny, PMI is included within CALYPSO, it doesn't require an additional license. But please see the Release Info for CAD/PMI compatibility: Best Regards Marcel

Yes in ISO you have the ISO 5459 that establish in other stuff DATUM and the evaluation for datum is like ASME outer tangengial. not LSQ.

Thanks for your help, @Richard Stanich Do you know if I need to create another stylus profile with a different name to enable CAA, or can I use a hybrid setup? In other words, can I use CAA while keeping the standard calibration for a passive stylus?

Hi Henrik, the CAD which GEAR PRO creates is not a true model. Especially in case of modifications like reliefs or crowning the CAD will not include this. To sum it up, CAD is mainly used for vizualization and simulation. Side info, the evaluation is not based on CAD but on the true involute mathematical model.

@David Gafner in both

ASME or ISO?

@RPSmetrologyTech I'm just saying how is this cylinder treated as a datum in any callout. This datum looks like 1:1 ratio

@Sven Radtke is correct. The global settings option has been a nice addition; it removes the risk of forgetting to turn it on and losing measurement points. Also, for older systems, for an infinite number of measurement points, you can enter "0" for the measuring point limit

So what you're saying is, per print, Datum -A- should be a cylinder with OT eval instead, not LSQ eval for the runout callout? I assumed short cylinders would be better evaluated as 3d lines.

I'm using something similar for deep things - 14mm probe with 11mm extensions as long as I need. Didn't really have issues, but I haven't measured at over 300mm length.

For me, the simulation got better, but I still can't do basic stuff like importing stylus systems from creator properly. Also, the newest service pack introduced some errors when I create base alignment and when using GDT engine. Just some random error message and the whole calypso need to be restarted. At this point I've given up on 2025.

Datum A is evaluated as outer tangential.

Which is better to use for runout datum a cylinder or a 3D line recalled from two circles measured in the cylinder. The a 3D line seems to give lower numbers than a cylinder. Is due to the cylinder axis is extend out forever and a 3D line is only the length from circle to circle?

Yes. I was wanting to give it a few days of testing it out to see if the solution still works and I'm glad to say that is has worked flawlessly. Steps are as follows: 1. Open the Probing System Qualification window 2. Click "Insert new stylus system" 3. Have your stylus ready in the desired angle you want and uncheck the "RDSCAA" box. This will set the current angle as the position for this stylus in which to be used. Having that box checked will have it do the multiple position qualification throughout the range of the head's motion. (That's what I had originally done for my 2MM stylus. This is less accurate as it calculates parts of the stylus that it doesn't touch to the sphere.) Having the box unchecked will qualify the stylus locked into that position. 4. Name your stylus and the current position. 5. Now Qualify After you have the base qualification set, you click "Insert new stylus" and add more positions in whichever angles you want. I myself have nine(9) positions for my 2MM probe now. Each is named for their angle in A, B format. For example, A:0, B:-45 is named "0 -45" and so on to help with later programming so as not to have to remember which way the stylus is pointing. With this now done I am more confident in my findings and reports as it is more accurate and consistent with our other CMMs. 2MM PRECISION PROBE CHECK.pdf

I am using the original RDS CAA sensor in CAA mode, its accuracy is outstanding. I have compared it to the VAST XTR for my own sanity and haven't found anything that would trigger an issue with accuracy. I don't have actual accuracy numbers. I have used features with the XTR for Diameter and location then used the same features with the RDS with no loss of accuracy up to the 5th decimal in Inch's. Worst case I noticed was a compound angle feature and my true position was .00011" (RDS) different in the result. Considering two axis and two rotations, that's quite accurate in my eyes.

Who is currently using PMI enabled CAD models for programming? I feel I am late getting into PMI, and we are just now moving in that direction. I am also working with Discus ballooning software for 2D prints and now testing out a trial license for PMI, any users using Discus and PMI, please chime in with any tips, hints or suggestions. Thank you. P.s. Should we start a PMI Forum section?

One of our other departments is discontinuing the use of their Comet L3D2 and I have the chance to upgrade from my ATOS unit. I have experience with GOM Inspect but zero experience with Calypso. Is it possible to capture data with the Comet through GOM inspect 2019?

Also instead of Add Mod try using the DOP or tooth thickness in Gear Pro from the print value. I have seen Add Mod incorrect may times on a drawing, wrong sign or too many decimal places or X but should be Xm, etc.

I think in most cases yes, as long as data is input correctly (including addendum mod., etc) especially in the newer Nx engine. I've used it for gear and spline cad modeling as well. I think it uses the generated involute & CAD for measuring the nominal, so it would have to be correct per the specs (ISO/AGMA, etc). You can also output to Calypso and take a slice at any height, and output the 2d curve points pop into excel, etc for a comparison, which it looks like you may have already done. Roman should be able to provide further info.

u can edit on calypso check the pictures

2nd Edit: It actually seems to just be wrong sometimes, even when completing a new run. Maybe it bugs out when placing in the post settings of the characteristic in question?

Hello, And the PMI module is an additional license? And maybe I have to change also the workflow at our CAD side. Johnny

Hi guys, I'm working with a brand-new Contura 700/1000/600 machine. We purchased it with the new RDS VAST XXT TL3 shorter head. Does anyone know the accuracy of the CAA function? I already have quite a few angular positions configured with different styli. I was thinking about using the CAA function to reduce calibration time, but I read somewhere that the accuracy with CAA isn't particularly good. I've already asked Zeiss France, but no one seems to know the actual accuracy. Some people told me it's around 0.1–0.2 mm, while others mentioned 0.05 mm. Does anyone have any information or experience with the RC-CAA function? luis

Hello. I just put the right angles for the calibration sphere. The technician used 135/45 with the original sphere. But, as I have a lot of probes, in my program I use another sphere. It'svertical, so angles are 180/0. Problem of SDO-1105 solved. Best Regards from Belgium.

Edit: It seems like the calculation only occurs after an entire CNC run with clear existing results is checked. If you rerun just the feature or update the tolerance, the tolerance state does not update. If anyone happens to know the exact parameters of the triggering of the calculation, I'd really appreciate it.