All Activity

No change occured when using runPCMFile()

the fileExists() comes back as true. i have also tried using actualInspectionsDir() and still no luck

I'll try that @Jens Kröcher and see if it works.

We have a stylus system that is very close to that one. It often qualifies between .0005 and .0010. We do use a counter weight, but it still doesn't qualify that well. We only use it for stuff with loose tolerance since I know its not that accurate. HOWEVER, I would suggest trying a different adaptor plate as well. The XTR adaptor plates are more complicated which just means that there is more that can go wrong. Which sucks, cause those things are $$$.

I recommend a counter weight as well along with taking it apart and cleaning the threads of all connections. The threads usually get me. I also find it ok to probe at 1% dynamics if needed.

I was able to find it too ( created dummy program and overwritten two files ) I am still working on my app - certainly it's not showing all things

Yep, for that length and probable weight, I would say a 40mm extension and about 50g of weight will work. I have a similar probe with this configuration.

What I found.

what happens when you build maximum compact with just the two styli and test them seperatly? Would be a good starting point knowing that this gives the expected results before looking further. You could then start rebuilding link for link, maybe that shows a weak link (a link with more flex than expected). I dont know the system so just speculating here, but it could also be wear of the modul itself. Meaning it was once "strong" enough to support the weight but isnt anymore.

Hi Pierre, my brain is making funny stuff out of your picture perpective wise regarding the orientation of plane 1. Is plane 1 perpendicular to both cylinder axis? If this is the case you could measure two cylinder for example like Martin has described and build a symmetrie axis. Depending on the part (form deviation) and function it could be better building this with just two circles start and end of the cylinders. Plane 1 would then be defined by the end surface of the two cylinder.

I would scan 3 circles - at beggining, middle and ending of a part - those 3 points can be your plane. Also in this case or in case with non 180° circle you can restrict circle radius to have stable centers.

I would suggest a counterweight.

There is no path to the file.

try runPCMFile(paramFile) instead of readPCMFile(paramFile)

I wanted to get some thoughts on this stylus system. I was informed that it has always qualified at .010mm or higher. It has recently been providing inaccurate results. The horizontal shaft is ~8 inches long. Today, we inspected the tips, and they appear to be in good condition (no visible flat spots or aluminum buildup under microscope). We verified all connections are tight. Both tips qualify at the same sigma value and radius (.005 mm oversized). We then tested qualifying each of the tips at a 20-30% probing dynamic, and that yielded .001mm. We also tested adding a counterbalance to the system, and that made no difference at the 100% probing dynamic. Does this seem right to you guys? Could there be something else causing issues? I have limited experience with stylus systems like this. We also have a couple other setups like this, and they qualify around the same sigma value. My leading theory is simply that the shaft length causes it to “shake” during probing, so the lower dynamic slows this movement down, allowing for more stability.

Considering that is a fully constrained DRF, each unique feature can be evaluated separately. You can then use the max and min result elements to report the specific max profile deviation. If you then want to just report the max result, you can “Mark” the other characteristics (which will hide them from the report). Be sure to also check the “Hide” button in the multiple reports screen.

Our programming team, just two of us, is certainly in a position where programming/debugging at the CMM is counterproductive with the volume of inspections. Top that off with no dedicated CMM operators to help test programs has had some disastrous results. I've quickly discovered some of the quirks with Planner and Simulation already. We'll see just how much more finnicky it can get!

Without the FreeForm license, here is an article on how to get a profile result... https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=2495545

I think you can create profile callout on every feature, then report Max ( or in ASME Max and Min ) from those characteristics. I have no exp without FF so i don't know how others are dealing with this.

This is probably pretty basic stuff, but how do I take a profile measurement of a composite of multiple features? I'm using Calypso 2025, and do not have FreeForm. Attached a snippet of the feature I'm trying to measure. Need a profile of the entire perimeter, despite what the drawing may suggest:

I am trying to recall 3 curves..... with all the errors I was getting I did the following... 1) i copied the recalled curve (no actual data anywhere when i did this but the same nominal curve), 5 times making 5 new features 2) I then de-selected curves just to select 1 single curve for three of the new features 3) I then de-selected curves in two of the new features to just two... one feature has the curve at the beginning and middle, the other has the curve at middle and end All of those came out with no errors... its only when I have selected all three, that the random error shows up...not just at the ends of one curve... some are in the middle of the the curve itself.....

for anyone else visiting this article at a later date, here's a KBA on the topic. https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=3139416

I took out the actual Part Numbers to avoid leaking any sensitive data. The PCM File runs fine except for the loadCADFile() function. when trying to compute it on its own it returns 0 shown in the attached picture. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Mike // IGVAPCM.txt //variable named 'paramFile' is equal to the actual .para file name // Then 'fileExists' checks if the .para file is in the program's directory then reads(readPCMFile()) it if its there. paramFile = "PARAMETER.para" if fileExists(paramFile) readPCMFile(paramFile) else // If file isnt there, this writes the file to the programs directory addToFile("PARAMETER.para","RH = getRecordHead("u_field1")") // part number header addToFile("PARAMETER.para","ORH = getRecordHead("planid")") // plan/program id header addToFile("PARAMETER.para","DWGREV = getRecordHead("u_field2")") // drawing revision header addToFile("PARAMETER.para","MNAME = getRecordHead("operid")") // machine/operator name addToFile("PARAMETER.para","MAT = getRecordHead("u_field4")") // takes into account the material being used endif // Main selection / confirmation loop starts here. // The repeat...until loop will keep asking until exitLoop becomes true. repeat PART = inquireList("Select the correct Program Number","ZA3657","ZA3658") validSelection = false // reset the flag for this loop iteration fileExists("ZA3657CAD.sat") fileExists("ZA3658CAD.sat") clearCAD() setCoordSysVisible(true) // --- PART-specific cases --- if PART == "ZA3657" loadCADFile("ZA3657CAD.sat") setRecordHead("planid", "ZA3657_PARTNO_002_OP40") setRecordHead("u_field9", "ZA3657_PARTNO_002_OP40") setRunID("ZA3657") // runs the named mini-plan validSelection = true endif if PART == "ZA3658" loadCADFile("ZA3658CAD.sat") setRecordHead("planid", "ZA3658_PARTNO_002_OP40") setRecordHead("u_field9", "ZA3658_PARTNO_002_OP40") setRunID("ZA3658") // runs the named mini-plan validSelection = true endif wait(10) redrawCAD() setFit() // If no valid PART matched (user canceled or selected an unexpected value), show a message if validSelection == false message("No valid selection. Please select a part or check automation headers.") endInspection() else // Refresh header variables so the next steps use what we just set RH = getRecordHead("u_field1") // part number we set above ORH = getRecordHead("planid") // program/plan id we set above DWGREV = getRecordHead("u_field2") // drawing / revision read back MAT = getRecordHead("u_field4") // FIX: ensure the header key is a string // Ask the operator to confirm the displayed metadata before starting exitLoop = confirm("ARE THESE VALUES CORRECT?", cr(),"PART NUMBER: ", RH, cr(),"PROGRAM NUMBER: ", ORH, cr(),"REVISION: ", DWGREV) // confirm returns true if operator clicks Yes/OK endif until exitLoop == true

Good day , can some one please help me , see the uploaded part , the spatial base aligment needs to be between both round sides , i want plane 1 to be my spatial alignment Part3.pdf

I thought it was just rotation around z. This is version 2018. So I probably have to allow rotation in the freeform. Thanks.