All Activity

Had this happen when the hole is small, relative to probe, and out of expected position.

Hi @Jacob G.. We use two 3-bay MSR's (626100-9382-002) on our O-Inspect 543. This works fairly well.

Is there a loose/damaged component? The low form error is confusing, though. Does it have something to do with the fact that it's labeled a cylinder but has the circle symbol in the feature window? Seems like there was some tinkering with that feature at some point. I agree with the previous replies about shanking and burrs but I'd think the form error would be higher, even with filtering. I've seen something similar to that caused by a cracked (off brand) carbon fiber extension. The crack was causing the extension to flex more one way than the other and the result was similar to what you have pictured.

We recently purchased a O-Inspect 543 and want to duplicate stylus systems like what we have on an existing O-Inspect 322, but it looks like the largest MSR available on the 543 only has space for 3 styli. The MSR 5+1 (626100-9382-021) will not clear the uprights on the machine so I know that isn't an option. Has anyone else experimented with setting up multiple MSRs on the system? Thank you for your help

Well i am using that for removal of fixture from mesh. In program i am importing cad model and assigning it as a fixture. Then i am selecting used fixture in Aquisition menu. Now fixture model is exactly where ref points is telling ( according to refxml definition ) I believe after scan and background removal you normally polygonize. Then you go to selection by mesh - select fixture and define far away from model you will select on mesh. Now press Ctrl+Delete to remove selected mesh.

Seems the 2017 version i am running does not have that edit initial alignment option. I was able to delete all the previous alignments and access the LBF by reference points. I got some questions 1. How does GOM understand how to use the imported refXML for polygonization? My understanding of photogrammetry is that this will increase accuracy of transformations 2. The REFXML doesnt come into effect until the scan gets done and it then aligns the imported point cloud to the newly scanned fixture, how does this improve scan parameters? once the ref points are aligned, do the imported nominals readjust the newly scanned ref points? 3. only way to confirm that photogrammetry is working is to do a type 2 or type 1? Just trying to wrap my head around the whole process. Thank you

I've seen calypso make some pretty funny shapes when a hole is so far from where it should be. Looking at your X and Z.

This should be possible with PCM in your program presetting. I have not tested this, but here is some rough code that should help you get started. You can add more if/then legs to be more specific. MiniPlan=getRunID() If MiniPlan= *your miniplan name* setProtocolOutput(*appropriate Syntax*) else set ProtocolOutput(*appropriate Syntax*) endif

I think you can not. But if you make a 3d curve from FF path, then you can recall measured points into a curve and now you can mask and evaluate. But to be sure we would need to know how FF looks like and it's points/path. With points far away and big curvature you can have wrong evaluation. Also i just wonder - you could possibly recall filtered points from curve back into a FF

I don't know how to correctly measure this, but you can make sections to get hexagon and evaluate that. Or measure distance of two opposing planes via symmetry plane and GD&T

Try taking discrete points... maybe a dozen or so?

@Tom Oakes something is masking out points. its set to 1048 points but only 462 are used for the evaluation.

No mag. No filters or outliers. Not sure why scanning 750 degrees. LSQ. Haven’t checked mask settings.

@Tom OakesI'm with you, what's up with the good form value? Looks heavily filtered. I'd look at the unfiltered data and check difference been min circumscribed and max inscribed.

Do you have Magnification for the feature on?

The thing that puzzles me is the low form value.

I see this a lot, when I am measuring a small internal diameter with a "not small enough" stylus. e.g.: inspecting a 4mm dia hole with a 3mm stylus. After I use a 2mm or 1.5mm stylus, the geometery looks good; but the values are no different than the larger stylus

I suspect similar to Chris - probe shanking out, an out of round hole or a burr, or a combination of all three.

i've seen this once or twice before, I think I recall it was a hole and something was causing probe to shank, or it was really out of round ,etc.

Solved! that did the trick. I just had some syntax errors on my end. dir = getActualInspectionDir() loadCADFile(dir+"\NameOfCADFile") must have the forward slash added in there thanks everyone

I have my thoughts on what is going on with this circle, but I'd like to hear what you all think.

Hi, I measure a very small freeform surface and need to exclude a certain circular area from evaluation. I use scanned point sets in my strategy and it would be very difficult to exclude the area during scanning, because the surface is so small and the tip radius is rather large in comparison. I fear the stylus might touch that area anyway and produce faulty points. It'd be better to mask the area afterwards, but I have no idea how to do that.

Hi All, I am a beginner to zeiss inspect software. I want to measure dimension of the hexagon on my part. I have access to CAD file but it doesn't contain PMI tags. I need to manually construct the features on CAD first before inspecting on actual part. How can I do it on zeiss inspect optical 3D 2026?

Hello Nicholas, We use Vast Probing for our DuraMax with XXT sensor Generally speaking, the accuracy of a measurement will be slightly lower. However, Zeiss is completely silent on the exact extent of this reduction. You’ll need to carry out comparative measurements to assess whether you’re still satisfied with the accuracy. The gain in speed, however, is impressively good. The sensor behaves almost like a switching sensor. The dwell time at the contact point is very short. Depending on the number of points used and the required level of accuracy, we’ve been able to run programmes up to 50% faster. Zeiss will certainly be able to provide you with a trial version. Just keep asking!

Thank you so much, it worked. 🙂