All Activity

For the start alignment, I'm using a -z probe and scanning two half circles on either side of the thread. recalling them into a 3d line. with a point in the y axis. I'm setting the base alignment plannar rotation to a point, but this just rotates my model along X axis. Am I missing a step?

The alignment isn't going to change the actuals of the measured plane flatness if you are just doing a recall feature points (they are still the exact same points collected). The alignment will absolutely have an impact on the measured plane flatness because each alignment is telling the hardware where to go to measure data. It seems like right now you are just throwing a lot of stuff at the wall, and trying to see what sticks, and unfortunately you have muddied the water by introducing so many variables, and not controlling any of them. Here's where I would start, and go from there: Create a new measurement plan. Use a stable base alignment: Use the face on the gear as it is the largest as the Spatial Rotation and Z Origin Only take (4) touch points equally spaced around the face (measure as a Plane) Use the ID of the gear as the X, and Y Origin Only take (4) touch points equally spaced around the diameter (measure as a Circle) Use the Keyway as the Planar Rotation Only take (2) touch points (measure as a symmetry point) Loop the Base Alignment 3x Place a break condition of 0.005mm Measure the Plane on the hub face with (2) circle paths (1) inside and (1) outside Scan at 5mm/sec 0.25mm point spacing Filter set to 2.5mm Outlier Elimination set to ±3 sigma (I wouldn't do adjacent points for a Flatness unless necessary) The speed/point spacing/filter might need to be adjusted to match your exact size, but I took a stab in the dark based on how it look.

@Don M. Usually you are limited to what the drawing stipulates. I've seen drawings have no specs on the involute form, and I've seen drawings have both the upper/lower limits of where the involute is to be valid. Sometimes it just isn't possible though due to the sizes required to achieve the spec limits, but I would always start by following what the drawing states. In most cases they just have the TIF, in those cases I just typically ensure that I am meeting that, and then let GearPro set the other limit. Obviously if there is a root/tip radius that I need to avoid I will adjust accordingly for that.

Now I'm just confused even more. So, I was getting frustrated with this whole situation not making sense, so I abandoned the program I had and started over. I was browsing the Zeiss Basic training instructions again, and had the idea to use the a cone to locate the part instead. I took a cone, plane and symmetry point in the keyway(cone/plane/sym as base align), fully defined alignment as it should be. I even swapped to a different probe to reach into the keyway, again, just to see what changes. I still added the 2 circles and created a 3d line, created 3 additional different alignments, (plane/circle), (Plane/circle/sym), and (3d line/plane) so I could see what changes without going back and forth and re-running the part. Made new planes from recalled points, but changed their alignments. As expected, nothing changes, because the alignment shouldn't matter. I've included a bunch of screenshots of the results and am at least now seeing just over .0001" of deviation between results, and are believable for what a ground surface should measure. What was happening before still doesn't make sense to me, especially since I recreated the same "bad alignment" program and got good results this time. Only thing I can think of is the fact that the 3.0mm long probe that is being used is a manual load, not from a probe rack, but I'm not getting the 'probe contacts closed' error, and the probes all re-qaul just fine. Is anyone able to make any sense out of what may have been going wrong previously? I just want to understand what's going on here.

I am logged in as master user. All functions are accessible, until the first time I save the inspection program. After saving, extraction from CAD model stops working. This includes defining points on the model. All other tools function normally.

I would think you could iterate your base alignment to get it there. I do something similar on twin screw compressor rotors. There's even a method where you don't have to iterate your entire base alignment and can iterate just the point. (see attached) Let me know if I'm mis understanding something cause it totally seems possible. Iterative Alignment.pdf

With the delta between the actual point and the desired nominal, and the thread pitch, you should be able to calculate the rotational angle to move to advance the thread the desired linear distance.

Curious how you guys determine the scan path for your profiles. The method we've used measures from the True Involute Form to the OD low limit (for external gears) or the ID high limit (internal gears).

Hi, you have already given the answer: for arbitrary mirror planes we can't ensure that the parametric is "mirrorable" in (most) cases with the intended behaviour of the customer. This leads to more questions than answers and therefore we prevented this option. Geometrically mirroring is supported with arbitrary planes! Regards

Hello, I'm having trouble aligning a part that's basically a cylinder with a thread in the center. Currently I have to take a manual space point and rotate the model manually until the point lines up with the model. Is there a better way of obtaining an accurate alignment for a part like this? Without translating the part in any direction, just rotate it until the point lines up with the model? I'm attempting to scan the threads with a duramax vast xxt.

I looked into the Auto Fetch Data and mine was checked. This didnt work for me. I unchecked and checked and it didnt work. I continue to see what is making this happen.

It's likely that you're not logged in as the Master user and therefore do not have the necessary privileges. Here's a couple articles on the topic of user privileges. How to set up - https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=523210 privileges defined - https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=443337

Thank you for this. So my other question would be that it was a different programmer that made this program. How would i know if he used a ring gage or other object for this qualification? Or could he just possibly remeasured the same ID to show this?

Thanks - definitely i'll try this - looks promising 🙂

Oof. That stinks. It looks like potentially there is a Profile characteristic that is the culprit. You can try having it create a new PiWeb database for that measurement plan and see if that corrects it. Open PiWeb Reporting Plus 2025 - Find the Measurement Plan on the left pane - Right click - Show in explorer - move the .dfs file to somewhere safe (this is all of your legacy data). Now try to evaluate the data and see if it still fails (note, I've had it not removing the database while PiWeb is running, so it might fail on the first attempt for a different error, just delete the new database it attempted to create and try again).

We did a complete shut down of the CMM, mains and computer and restarted everything and that did not work.

@Max Haynes If you open the "5" CAD Presentation characteristic, is it attached to a Characteristic/Feature? Try turning on the Display of Plot. Then manually Plot it, and see if it displays correctly there.

Before attempting anything too drastic, have you restarted everything to see if this clears up the issue (computer, and software mainly)? We can always try a new .dfm file to see if something go corrupted, but I'd start with the basic first.

I am running a program that has been run many times before, but now I am having an error come up and I cannot get the report to open or print, or the results to save to the computer. I am attaching the error report so you can look at it and hopefully help. Thanks for anything that you can help with. Scan_20260513.pdf

Slightly off-topic, but I'm so glad that the Gear world invented and embraced gear nomenclature because some of the descriptions I've seen on drawings are wild, but as long as they put the correct nomenclature (Fβ, fu, etc....) I can always get them what they need. I mean, I'm looking at a gear spec right now that says "Tooth Alignment - Total" for the Fβ, and then they next one says "Total Lead Variation" for the Fβ. 😅

Richard beat me to it. That's the exact infographic I train my lab techs on. I've gotten more positive feedback by sharing this infographic with associates while discussing gears than any other infographic on any other topic. Zeiss really nailed it with this one. Way better than the AI slop Calypso GDT package training videos they just released.

https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=3721337

I came across this this morning with an old program. I went and picked up my alignment manually and it stopped after i probed the C Datum ID. It asked if the probe Qualification is correct? I selected yes and then my pick up went away and the C Datum looked like it wasnt picked up? It didnt finish the alignment. Can i get some information on this please i have never come across this? Is this pertain to Qualification of the probe i am using for this program? Thank you for any direction on this, much appreciated.

Hi, here is how I did it for a 10-part division. The coordinate system rotates along Y with it. And the boxes are defined underneath.

Hi, seems to be intended. They differentiate between "Mirror parametrically" and "Mirror geometrically". https://techguide.zeiss.com/de/zeiss-inspect-2026/article/cmd_transform_element_mirror.html#FCT0EJDAE