All Activity

As far as I know, the cut off pressure is 5 bar for Contura. So even if it drops to 4.99 or below momentarily, the drives will turn off. We had similar issue where it would shut off at lower speeds even. Zeiss tech told me the same thing as Luis and I have not had any issues after the adjustment.

I have wondered if "Curve Jump" would not work to evaluate a dynamic profile (In 2D anyways...). It operates on a similar theory

We *are* seeing significantly smaller sigma values when qualifying on the smaller sphere, but both values are well under an acceptable value for our measurements. If this matters, I have not been able to see it metrologically yet.

Jochen, 😂 yes I did. Originally in the CMM/VMM but then I figured the general topic would yield more replies. Marcel, you’re right the 2x threaded hole callout are off center in the Y. The datum’s is A as a diameter and B as a face. But I suspected it has something to do with the rotation and a Calypso forces the feature to the perfect zero. I’ve opted to trust in the software and leave as is for now.

When I use a cylinder I get an even more confusion result. The majority of the reported Z values remain as zero but with every so often part I do see variation in the Z actuals.

From what you are describing I'm picturing having a face as A and a diameter as B origin and threaded hole off center in Y, but 0 in Z..... Since you have no clocker Z will always report as 0...... One thing to watch out for is if you have multiple features on the part is that they still have to meet your angular tolerance even when relationship is not specified directly.... For instance, if your general angle tolerance allows ±1° and you have a slot on side of the part and a hole on the face, those two still have to be within 1° even when not specified. If possible at all, I always add a clocker based on what they are doing on the CNC machine.... This helps them tweak the rotational relationship between features

i had issues with that the zeiss techinician told me to ajust at 5.05 max 5.1 Bars at 5.05 i have no issues in our new brand contura

When running the program Report will be generated pops-up then after a while around 5 minutes or so (not normal) then the error pops-up. Background notes: Our IT is working on all company computers regarding access, security, uninstalling old unsecured applications, etc. to be compliant under TISAX certification. Anything that Calypso is using in the background might be moved, deleted or reconfigured might be the culprit, but, I am wondering what that would be.

I thought that as well, and I forgot to mention that I verified the air pressure only dropped to 4.98 bar when moving. Normally it sits between 5.00 and 5.04 bar.

Maybe it's an air pressure issue?

I have noticed that if I have the Speed set to 300 in the program, it will occasionally error out, and kick off the drives. If I set it at 200 or 160, its fine. I have also noticed this happening during probe qualifications (List Qualification). If I turn the speed control knob to 75%, it runs fine. Once i go back to 100%, it will alarm out every now and then. I have cleaned all the ways with lint free cloth and 99% isopropyl alcohol, and the clothes are coming off fairly clean. ( i do this every other day). Is there a global setting I can change to keep the maximum travel speed to 250 or less?

Hello All, I have a question. We are starting to use Measurlink10 for data capturing and spc graphing. We use the Surfcom Nex 200 by Zeiss running the Accretech Acctee version 5.24 software. We run multiple programs for different part types, and each part type will have multiple pieces, (i.e. the same type of part from 10 different line). I know how to output the text results in a csv file from Acctee. But I also need the text output to include some kind of traceability. I need the traceability to be entered by the operator before each program run. Any help would be greatly appreciated. (If this isnt the correct area for this question, feel free to move it where it needs to be.)

We use CBA not FACS, and facsIsActive() still works in our projects for this purpose. Have you tried it?

Hi everyone, Is it really possible that until 2026 no one at Zeiss has evaluated spherical positioning? I got the information that no one has, and I wanted to confirm this with you so that if I don’t have Zeiss Inspect 2026, it won’t be possible to evaluate it correctly. Personally, I don’t believe that such a "basic" thing is something Zeiss can’t do. Thanks for any answer.

You can not just switch between 2768 and 22081. 22081 is so much more than just general tolerances. When i first read through 22081 i told our engineers (mostly older) that they have to change their way of thinking or they won`t be able to understand a drawing with 22081 and the implications at all. From 22081 (only got this in german) Meaning older drawings still got to use 2768

you openend two threads for the same topic?

Hi Thomas, sounds like you only got a point (centerpoint circle) and not a zylinder. Thats why you only get the options circular tolerance zone (2d) or spherical (3d). You would need (if there is a "Ø" in the tolerance field) a cylindrical tolerance zone and therefor a cylinder.

@Adrian Beck How are treated old drawings? For example from year 1996 or even older? For example in 2768-1 there was an table with tolerances ( which could be recommended ) - in newer version it's without this table and it's said this table of tolerances has to be in drawing or customer norm.

Dirt left by something scratching over the granite surface (like an aluminum plate) tends to settle into the fine pores of the grinded surface. There's almost no way to get it back out from there, but it is not a big issue as long as it doesn't protrude above the surface.

DIN 2768-2 wurde 2021 zurückgezogen und mit der DIN EN ISO 22081 ersetzt

If all your base alignments are shifted by the same amount and direction, you probably have a problem with the CMM reliably detecting its end switches while homing. This can have several reasons, one of them is indeed the controller being faulty. On our old Contura (2001) the end switches were magnets embedded in the ends of the scales and at one time we also had shifted alignments. It turned out that the distance between the magnets and the sensor detecting the magnet's position was too large, so a tech had to readjust it. You see, there are many possible causes for the same error. I don't know how this is connected to Calypso reporting missing CMM data, but all the symptoms you describe together point to a severe hardware problem in my opinion.

Hi, can you describe what feature you used for threads? What are those datums B and A. How your TP callout looks like? Drawn sketch would help also.

Has anyone been able to figure out this stuttering issue. Simulation has been completely abandoned at this point due to this issue.

I’m measuring the true position of two threaded holes using the legacy true position with datum B primary and A secondary. The Y results vary, but the reported Z location is measuring zero. Nominal location being zero. When I switch from a diametral Y/Z tolerance zone to a polar zone, Z variation appears but the drawing does not specify a projected tolerance so I don’t want that. I also changed a feature’s nominal Z from 0 to 0.100 as a test, and its actual Z then reported 0.1000. Anyone know why this is happening? Given the datum structure, rotation is free so is Calypso forcing the feature to the perfect zero? If so, is this ok to leave like this? Note: I’ve also tried using a bore pattern and freeing the rotation. When I do there is variation in both Y and Z but of course TP results significantly increase since there is now another variable to include in the error.

I’m measuring the true position of two threaded holes using the legacy true position with datum B primary and A secondary. The Y results vary, but the reported Z location is measuring zero. Nominal location being zero. When I switch from a diametral Y/Z tolerance zone to a polar zone, Z variation appears but the drawing does not specify a projected tolerance so I don’t want that. I also changed a feature’s nominal Z from 0 to 0.100 as a test, and its actual Z then reported 0.1000. Anyone know why this is happening? Given the datum structure, rotation is free so is Calypso forcing the feature to the perfect zero? If so, is this ok to leave like this? Note: I’ve also tried using a bore pattern and freeing the rotation. When I do there is variation in both Y and Z but of course TP results significantly increase since there is now another variable to include in the error.