All Activity

not sure is gear pro has this option, worst case you could try to covert roll angle -> diameter or roll length and 'transform' your tolerance, although not ideal I realize. Alternatively you can draw raster tolerance lines at those °of roll for a visual check, I've definitely had to do that in the past.

😄😅🤣 I'm still waiting for when we can apply cookbook setting to Features too (as an option), and before any features are made in the program, not AFTER !, you know .... SMART !! I'd reach out to your local zeiss guy they may have a solution for you...😉

If you constrain the vector, you are forcing it to the nominal vector of the alignment that it lives in - very dangerous imo.

I'm not certain how you have your presetting setup, but an FYI for Curve is that the Import to CNC means the following: "The nominal values of the curve and, if necessary, also its tolerances, will only be determined during the CNC run on the basis of the selected file." I have a pretty complex PCM program that checks some "dimensions" and then determines what variant it is running from those "dimensions". The way it works for me is the following: I have (3) check features. After those the first real feature has pre-settings. In this case you can see that the slot1setNo variable is what is set to which set or variant this particular group of features belongs to. Inside of the curve it looks like this: It will only change and read the new file once it is all executed, but I have confirmed that this works with no issues. Let us know more about how you have this setup, and maybe we can identify what is happening.

Keith's idea works perfectly. But aligning your model in SolidWorks by creating your coordinate system there works good too.

I did a little testing on my own seat of CALYPSO as well as a review of some development notes, and it appears this was simply be something that changed with newer versions/service packs. In 2024 (and as best I can tell, possibly some early SP's of 2025), the diameter for material modifier calculations was included in the report, and I don't see an easy way to disable this. As of (at least) 8.0.16, those diameters are no longer reported.

Here are some screen shots. Is there anything else you would like to see?

I'm lost again attempting more research. The results are in tolerance if the angled feature is constrained, but the cad eval looks warped. The results are out of tolerance if neither are constrained, but the cad eval looks fine.

Keith, Perfect answer. Exactly what needs to be done.

On a GD&T Engine position when using MMC and MMR on the feature and datum it reports the diameters of the feature and datum under the position result in the report. Is there a way to report the position value only? Turning additional report off doesn't work for this. Thank you

I am measuring the flatness of several plains. The first two are the same size and have nearly the same measurement result. I go into the flatness characteristic, select 1500 error magnification and open Piweb form plot. The first one looks really good and in the bottom right-hand corner says 1500:1. Above that it says 1.000 minch. I think that's supposed to be inch. The second one also says 1500:1 but above that it says .100 minch and looks more severe. I think that's right, but the first one is wrong. It's like that no matter what I do. I have recreated the flatness characteristics and still the same thing depending on which plane I select. What could it be about that first plane? Both flatness results are within .0001" of each other.

I'm having a problem importing a curve via PCM. I use the “Nominal Geometry Manipulation -> Read Nominal Values” option to load the curves I store in a folder. I created a variable in the program's input settings to update the path to the correct curve based on the type of tool being inspected. However, the path variable in the “File Selection” window (see image) only updates when I open the Formula window, not when the program starts. This prevents me from fully automating my program. Is this due to an issue on my end? My other variables and formulas work perfectly. Could this be related to the version of Calypso? Has anyone else experienced this issue?

Constraining both planes in the characteristic evaluation was my issue. It's outputting a result that the engineer can agree with. Like I said, my go-to scanning methods usually work. I've never had problems measuring angles between planes before, it's cone angles I have issues with evaluating. I was getting the same thing on the comparator and keyence too. The customer is still 3d scanning the feature and will probably tell us it's out. But I did what I could. Thanks again for all the information!

Try using a Text Element (Resources - Utilities - Textelement) and utilizing the .calibration

Thank you Jeff and Marcel! I'm very grateful for both of your responses. I completely agree that I'm over doing it. Typically I would also just make line scans, since it's just an angle and length measurement, nothing to it. I've been attempting to convince my co-workers that no matter where I take the line scan, it's not 45°.

Yes, circle with size defined by the two points, and then a curve from that circle, which is used for a fitting circle. The linear size needs a selection like a section or curve. Cluster is to copy elements and inspections so that would help to create elements around A for every tooth for example.

@Nanno Muehl Thanks - that seems to work and it's much simpler instead of creating next elements just for makeing total of 4 points on circle. So i'll create circle by center and point → refferenced constr. → create curve from that circle ( refferenced ) → create circle from curve ( fitting ) Is that right? Next thing would be cluster i think - i hope i'll learn that too - it's so messy with naming

It should work if you use this function on the circle, then create a fitting circle from the curve: https://techguide.zeiss.com/en/zeiss-inspect-2026/article/cmd_curve_create_curve_from_2d_geometrical_element.html

Hello, I'm scanning a composite part with both plastic and metallic components on a Metrotom 1. My goal is to inspect the plastic part or metal and plastic at the same time, but I'm struggling to get the plastic part. What are the recommended parameters (kV, power, exposure time, and filter) for scanning composite parts with low-density materials (plastic) with metal components? Should I use Beam Hardening Correction? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hello Daniel, you are right, the current situation within CALYPSO is, that as soon as the "Sigma" Value Limit is reached, the "old/good" Sigma value from the previous qualification is used in the Result Element. The Reason why the faulty qualification doesn't overwrite the good qualification is that it could cause a vector change that could lead to a collision in the following qualification. Development is working on a solution for a better visualization. Currently you can only see that the Stylus is not qualified in the Stylus System Management (marked as red) as well as the "default report". The default Report shows that the stylus is not qualified and additionally the correct/bad Sigma value. Best Regards Marcel

So using two points allows to create correct circle fails on GD&T size - so no MMR can be used

@Nanno Muehl So i've tested that circle. As i thought - it was using whole section to calculate. BUT - if i go to actual circle, constrain it's center point into symmetry point, deselect data and select only those two points, then projection into actual section plane, then it's calculating that circle from two points 🙂 But - is that correct? All hints are telling me it's using what it should be using 🙂

@Nanno Muehl Thanks, i'll look into it. Problem is i can not fit width as stated by base circle/cylinder. I can get GG or MIN and MAX distance. Tested with symmetry from two 2d lines and that worked. Tested with circle, but i am not sure if i can use fitting circle from section to use only those two points - i think it will fit into section measured curve. Any hint into pattern alignment? I don't think customer wants individual tooth to be evaluated separately - it will be machined, so i think he wants to evaluate symmetry ( or one axis TP ) on patterned alignment. Good is that customer is not returning parts even if we are making them a few years.

Good morning, as @Jochen Heller pointed out, a linear size is needed which cannot be calculated by two points in Inspect, Calypso seems to allow this. You could create a cylinder based section through the part, so the section results in two sections per gear tooth which can be used to create two fitting lines -> symmetry line. Linear size is then possible and thus MMR. Alternatively this: A pseudo fitting circle must be created by creating a circle with radius by point (one of the points) -> Curve from 2D element -> use this curve as selection for fitting circle.

Hi @RPSmetrologyTech. It looks like you've really been diligent on analyzing this problem. I like the form plots. Regarding your two last questions: 1. "Wouldn't the shape of the angle measurement be the same as angularity?" That's an understandable assumption. However, no, the shape of the scanned deviations for an angular measurement are fundamentally different from those in a GD&T angularity characteristic. The reason for this relates to the shape of the tolerance zones. Angularity establishes a linear tolerance zone that is controlled by a basic angle driven by the datums. In the case of your chamfer feature, the shape of the tolerance zone is two parallel planes. The .001064 deviation is the quantity of linear deviation from the center of that coplanar tolerance zone. Regarding colors: The magnitude (farther or closer from nominal) of deviations in the angularity characteristic will assign the color gradient based on departure from the coplanar tolerance zone. 2. "I'm also not sure why the cad eval doesn't change color when the characteristic is out of tolerance." The way that the color gradient in Calypso angular characteristic should be assigned is in an arc-shaped path relating to the angle. However, for angle measurement, all we get is a form plot that shows us the form deviation of the two features of interest. This is why there is no color gradient assigned, and it's all green. This CAD evaluation is still useful; however, because it shows you how the planes are calculated according to their form error, and significant form error can be a signal for out-of-tolerance results. I hope that answers those two questions. Chamfers are important features that are often downplayed as "simple." Also, the evaluation algorithm that is assigned to each of the features that construct your chamfer is very important. Outer tangential method will be prone to rocking the planes and introduce high variation in results. If you're using high density scanning, which appears to be the case, LSQ may give you more stable results. Either method may be valid, but it helps to be aware of the effects. Chamfers are also a rare case where I sometimes enable the "constraints" options in the evaluation tab of the features to prompt the characteristic to only consider deviation along vectors that matter functionally. I'm interested to hear how this chamfer measurement problem develops for you.