All Activity

Hi, i am now dealing with measurement for more parts on one scan. I was able to find definition of segments for more than one part, but due to size and nature of evaluated dimension i have to place parts like this Basic table definiton can be like number of parts on 360° segments. I can not use that. Now there is a box selection, but it's Z axis is given from 1st scan. Which can vary. I've tried to place ref. points on T holder of parts to obtain adapter ( plane/line/point ), but for correct box definition i have to correct angles of boxes and their origin - which can be defined only in initial alignment. I've tried to make an alignment from that adapter, but those boxes can not be adjusted automatically. My only option would be running a python script, which would either adjust those boxes, or make 3D selection of points in holder alignment and make stages. Do anyone have some tips for me how to solve this without that script? Thanks

Haha, I should have phrased that differently. The option would be ideal. Something simple, but this sounds more like PiWeb, so it would probably involve coding 😆

Please remove this comment. Hahahahaha. Calypso used to show the diameter that it calculated, but people complained because it added more lines to their report, so they removed it. It would be nice as an option to disable. I prefer choice.

I set all my programs to Sunday drive mode 😀 \\Sunday Drive Mode, hey they're paying me double ;) if DayOfWeek=="Sunday" then set InspectionSpeed("turtle") endif

Believe it or not, I met somebody once that got a ticket for going too slow. It was considered a safety issue, and obstructing traffic.

Thanks for the feedback. Already considered those things, but good to hear them back! After thinking more about it makes sense to use the GD&T evaluation for the calculation. Since different evaluations will lead to different sizes and, more importantly, different locations, especially for the true position. But I guess I'm a little annoyed that the number is not automatically included in the report. Or even better, why not have the characteristics report in the proper evaluation since the standard is known! Now that it's gone, I somewhat miss the pop-up that Calypso used to give when you applied a material condition and a size had not been applied to the feature. It also gave you a notification if a different evaluation was being used. I'm not the biggest fan of the extra material condition option that is now within the GD&T characteristic. I believe it's overly hidden and presents a high risk of not being updated when there is a change to the size.

Hi Everyone, I'd like to have Calypso and/or Piweb output an Excel report based on certain conditions. 1) Only create an Excel report if all dimensions are in tolerance. 2) Only create an Excel report if the inspection is a Final inspection based on the report header selection of inspection type that is chosen from a pulldown menu. I've done some searching and it looks like I might need to run some sort of script or something when the program finishes to accomplish this, but I'm not sure how to do that. I don't have PCM but if that's something that will do this then I would be willing to add that. Looking for the easiest way to do this within the program and not relying on a network solution. Thank you for your help!

We also have the "Tube Check" App available: https://software-store.zeiss.com/de/products/apps/tube-check It is possible to get a free 30 day trial, maybe the App helps for this and later projects.

You need to setup your machine tab correctly inside of your Planner. Here is a Knowledge Base article on setting this up. https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=520919

Try a projection or silhoutte, create the two lines and the intersection point.

You can always change the evaluation parameters inside of the GD&T characteristic. In addition, always ensure you double check the tolerances for the MMC itself. If you copy/paste characteristics and change the feature via typing the MMC values will be incorrect.

Hello everyone, Im trying measure "L2" but i need to have a point thats not touching the part. Is it possible to create lines outside of two cylinders and an intersection point?

Yes, definitely. If you are evaluating to an ASME print then Position should use Outer Tangential evaluation. Reported size should also use Outer Tangential, unless you are doing a capability study, then LSQ would be appropriate.

Thanks. That was not the Solution. But after switching from .Net 4.7 to 4.8 it worked 🙂

Hallo zusammen hat schon mal jemand einen PCM Befehl geschrieben, bei dem eine .DFD Datei ausgelesen wird und die Inhalte für die Protokollkopfbefüllung genutzt wurden. Am besten wäre noch wenn vor dem Start des Messprogramm die Daten angezeigt werden würden ob sie richtig sind.

@Ben Sovacool are you programming on an offline seat? With SSC or otherwise created "virtual" styli? Then this is normal (yet annoying) behavior. You can select geometry requal. only if a probe already has real calibration data (from a real CMM) stored in the probe database. Why they block this option even in Planner is beyond me. So if you're on Planner, you have to edit that option later on the physical CMM. If you're on the CMM, calibrate the stylus once manually.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, and apologies if this has already been discussed. When using the New GD&T, it appears the MMC bonus is being calculated based on the “suggestion” evaluation used in GD&T, which may not align with the evaluation selected for the diameter size. For example, I generated a quick output where I left the diameter and true position at their default evaluations: LSQ for the diameter and “suggestion” for true position. Based on the above, I calculated the MMC tolerance to be 0.2078. However, the report shows 0.1892. Using CALYPSO’s calculation, the implied diameter would be 3.1592. Listed Tolerance-Base Tolerance=Bonus Bonus+Lower Spec=Actual Size 0.1892-0.03=0.1592 0.1592+3.0=3.1592 After reviewing the diameter evaluation and making an educated guess about what the “suggestion” evaluation was using internally, I applied an Outer Tangential evaluation. This resulted in the 3.1592 size that I was hoping for. It seems the MMC bonus may be tied to the evaluation method used internally by the GD&T characteristic rather than the reported size evaluation itself. I guess if you make perfect form holes/bosses, you've got nothing to worry about 😁

It has been awhile since I've created one but If you are creating a qualification program you would use this I believe. I believe your mode by default will be what your last qualification you had set. You might be able to change if you open the Probing system qualification characteristic.

a bit off track here, but if speed limit says 55mph and I am only going 2mph, am I breaking a law ? j/k I think there is a minimum requirement 😁 Great question Jeff, I have measured a few things I can recall where probe was so slow I could not see it moving (mainly small radii I believe)- with no issues Im aware of ...

The title says it all. I am attempting to set up a re-qualification measurement plan and from our training manual, I am supposed to switch the Mode from Tensor to Geometry Re-qual. Unfortunately, my only available options are Tensor, Dyn.tensor, and 6 Points. Everything else is grayed out.

I'm attempting to set up simulations in Planner. I want to create a re-qual program for the different styli that I currently have. When I go to add a rack, the type of holder I need is not in the drop down menu when prompted to "Please select the desired holder". I need an XXT and the only options I have are MT, MT (old), ProMax, and ZCR.

Are there any online trainings that anyone has found that focuses on this area? I could get good/reasonable results for Center of Ball & Gap measurements, using the initial Curve that I traced, but the Tangents were way off. I had to measure the feature (Gothic Arch) as a Circle and recall those points into a Curve, in order to get good/reasonable results across the board...

Hallo, man kann das polygonisierte Netz mit F4 (Erzeugungsparameter bearbeiten) bearbeiten, um dann die Selektion auf den Messdaten über diese Funktion anzupassen: https://techguide.zeiss.com/de/zeiss-inspect-2026/article/cmd_selection3d_select_inside_cube.html

Thanks a lot for your help. For now, I used "more_points", and it seems that it's working. So by tomorrow i should see the results. Thanks a lot one more time.