All Activity

A clearance distance of 0.01" eliminates the arc motion for me.

Chance you can share a drawing or anything? I'm not understanding the "3 polyline" reference. I think of polylines as strategies for probing planes, while you've specified an OD. Are you having trouble "finding" the slots that could be eliminated via fixturing or material detection techniques (self center, material detection, missing borehole, etc) in order to probe reliably? I think you've got an OD with slots interrupting the surface, and you want to measure the OD. There are several ways to do this. 1. single points set to miss the slots 2. Create a circle (or cylinder) on the OD. In the strategy, create small arcs between the slots; one strategy for each. 3. Same as #2, but scan lines axially along the cylinder between the slots. There are other methods too. I don't want to detail any further before knowing I understand your problem.

That's terrible. I hate running from Characteristics. So much easier to optimize tool changes from the feature side. Regardless, you've solved an old problem of mine. Thanks!

There are a few programs here that were written before my time. In many of them I see a move that I don't know how to do on purpose, and I hate when it happens by accident. I've got a really good sense of how the retract and clearance distances work. I understand the sequence of stops along the road from CP to probing and back. We always have long shafts with long axes oriented along Y. We very frequently come down from CP+Z to Z zero at CL of the part in order to scan the upper 180° of the shaft. I'm quite comfortable with verifying my rotations to ensure a 180° scan starts at 90 or 270 as appropriate, and that I'm never looking to reach around or under onto the back side of the stylus sphere. In some old programs, the stylus pierces CP+Z and moves in a straight line along Z to the retract distance, which is what I want. In others, the stylus pierces CP+Z in a huge arc move; tracing a portion of a spiral that starts at the CP and persists all the way down to the retract distance. In all examples Clearance Distance is zero. In all cases we're using a stylus system with a single stylus to Z-. They aren't the same stylus though; different tip diameters and lengths across programs. Recently I programmed a sphere offline as I always do; one of 4 in a small program. When I got to the machine, 3 of them worked just as expected with straight line moves from CP to retract, but one sphere approach did the huge swoop, hellbent on colliding with every feature in the measuring volume except the one I wanted to evaluate. The really strange part is that I programmed only one sphere. I then copied that sphere and adjusted the nominal locations only; all sit at the same Z height so I adjusted X and Y only. I literally never opened the strategy window in the second sphere. The strategies for all 4 spheres are the same as I only wrote them once. Measurement Plan Editor Features has an option for Arc Motion mode which I've not explored and do not understand. All we need to know here is that every program I've ever written is defaulted to "on", and that changing it to "off" had no effect that I could see. "Form related travel within Strategy" is another heading in the editor. Again, I've not explored this yet, but everything I've ever written has this defaulted to "off", and turning it on had no apparent effect. This move does not occur in simulation, but it does occur on both physical machines every single time in those programs that use it. I used some position points to get down where I needed, so I don't have a lingering problem I need solved. Anybody know where this move might be coming from, or how to avoid it? It's baffling that I cannot spot anything different yet there it is. Below is my current system, though this "feature" has been present since 2015 at least. CALYPSO 2024 , ServicePack 5 Version 7.8.20 (27.10.2025) Accura 16-42-14 and Accura2 16-42-15, both with VAST Gold.

Hope this is an easy one. I inadvertently checked a box that said "never open the favorites window again" or something like that. This is the favorites / recent programs window that we get when we click "open". Now when I click Open I go straight to the browser. This isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to revert. How do I get my recents / favorites window back??

Be careful. Nominal size is never a factor in MMC / LMC. Only maximum and minimum sizes matter. First, I assume the FOS is an EXTERNAL cylinder. If so, it goes like this: If your external cylinder is at its very smallest size allowed by the tolerance, the design can tolerate greater deviations to position. MMC gives a "bonus" tolerance calculated by subtracting the actual size from the maximum allowable size and adding that value directly to the position tolerance given in your FCF. If your cylinder is an INTERNAL FOS: If your internal cylinder is at its very largest size allowed by the tolerance, the design can tolerate greater deviations to position. MMC gives a "bonus" tolerance calculated by subtracting the minimum allowable size from the actual size and adding that value directly to the position tolerance given in your FCF. Looking at the two red lines in your report, the top one contains the value you need to report. This is the position fully resolved including all bonus tolerance. The second line is something that should default to excluded but doesn't. It's a useless value to you. Search the forums; there are ways to remove this line with a snippet of code in your report template.

Thank you for all the feedbacks! I would share the drawing if I could but the replies helped clarify the issue a lot.

As replied in another thread - in this table where is (M) it's calculated statistical value just for SPC purposes - real value is without (M) but your tolerance is increased. (M) value can be "ZERO" when you have allout as "0 (M)" because of formula ( can be found in forum ) - in that formula is final step a multiplying of base tolerance.

in this example my position tolerance is .0000(M) my diameter is .099 +/-.003 with an actual of .097734. The result before MMC is .002709 and that was adjusted down to below .0000? is that correct?

but if the hole size is under the nominal, there should not be a change in the position right? so if your nominal hole size is 100 and the hole size is 99, if the position is .001 without MMC shouldn't if be .001 with it?

Yes, the surfaces are highlighted on the new model. I appreciate you helping out and I'll try the double cad from solidworks. I've always hated having to keep track of 2 programs and 2 reports for a part. Never know who's going to run these parts again and I'm never sure about running someone else's program and knowing I'm not missing anything. Some days I'm really confident in my programming abilities and parts like these knock me way down.

@Hector Soto, do the entities listed in the surfaces window (331 2, 340 2, etc.) highlight on the new model when you click on their names in the features window? Or, do surfaces on the previous model highlight? I'm trying to get an understanding of root cause. The surfaces of interest on the new model should become highlighted when you click the surface/magnifying glass icon and also when you select them individually in the surfaces list. Your frustration is understandable. Best practice in Calypso, which most programmers stick with, is to use separate measurement plans for separate part setups. One other option, if it's value-added to keep both models in the same measurement plan, would be to create a combined model of both setups in a design software such as Solidworks and then export them as a multi-body ACIS (.sat). Deleting the existing models and importing a multi-body .sat may prevent your current surface association issue.

I am trying to check a Perpendicularity and position using MMC. As I understand MMC, it allows extra tolerance when the diameter is larger than nominal size. In the example above the actual diameter is smaller than nominal yet the MMC position is almost .004 under the actual position. How is this possible, what have I done wrong?

the (M) is not the MMC calculation i believe it just for statistics, you can just ignore it. you can search it on the forum and find a few posts to understand it. if you had bonus tolerance with MMC it would be calculated into the tolerance for the original position.

It's working not from nominal but from minimal/maximal size. (M) on hole will get no bonus on min. diameter and full bonus on max. diameter. (L) on hole will get no bonus on max. diameter and full bonus on min. diameter. On shaft it's inverted.

I am trying to check a Perpendicularity and position using MMC. As I understand MMC, it allows extra tolerance when the diameter is larger than nominal size. In the example above the actual diameter is smaller than nominal yet the MMC position is almost .004 under the actual position. How is this possible, what have I done wrong?

These also did not work. I'm close to throwing in the towel and just creating a separate program for the bottom side. This has been beyond frustrating.

ooooof .....'could lead to incorrect results'....

Are you trying to make your Excel file a template for when Calypso exports to Excel?

Dark mode tetris? Hell yeah.

I've made this working by having two models placed same as a physical fixture. But that means you can not have overlaping models, so working area is bigger as for two parts. Now you have to go to join those two models as one. The easiest method is repairing model - this will join them as one CAD model, now it will know what is workpiece and FF will work. Only one thing - do a secondary alignment on a secondary fixture.

Here is a video tutorial on how to update to a 2026 license through the portal. https://portal.zeiss.com/iqr-academy/video/2No-uamZaJuV99yngepcDh Also a PDF on the license manager. https://dcc-assets.zeiss.com/iqs/[Customer]_Licensemanager_2.0_Instructions_EN_v1.1.pdf

Thank you for the response, I got a hold of Zeiss, and they are saying since this is re-occurring, it may be an issue with the board inside the RDS cage...whatever that means. But usually, I can restart and it will connect or in a couple cases I have had to just delete the probe data and reconfigure the settings. But I do appreciate the feedback, Marcel.

@Hector Soto, @Zen Cat is absolutely correct. The Free Form Surface (FFS) feature is unique in Calypso in that it is defined solely from the CAD model hierarchy. You're on the right path in troubleshooting. Focus on that window on the right side of the feature window underneath the trash can icon. This is the "surfaces" window. That is where surfaces from the CAD hierarchy will populate to show where the FFS is getting its nominals. There are a couple of things to try. First, make the model surfaces viewable. Then, click once on the icon in the FFS that looks like a surface with a magnifying glass. That activates the "surface picker." Then, click on the surfaces in the *second model,* to the right of your first model. You should see those surfaces populate in the surfaces window. If any unintentional surfaces populate in the surfaces window, click on them in the list and then click on the trash can icon directly above the surfaces window. This may be enough, or you may need to also you the "CAD model comparison" function, which is listed in the menu bar under "CAD." That function can be a way to attach features to a CAD model retroactively. One other sidepoint: make sure to save the measurement plan after you've imported the new model. That helps Calypso write the model to the measurement plan. Keep us posted on your progress. I'm interested to hear how this turns out for you.

This did not work. It put the points in the base alignment again.