All Activity

I *believe* what I did last time I encountered this situation was to: Scan each pad, and create a Geometry Best Fit Alignment from them Create Maximum Coordinates for each Datum Pad (relative to the Geometry Best Fit Alignment) Offset two of those Maximum Coordinates by the nominal distance to the other two Create a Plane, using the two Maximum Coordinates & two Offset Points

Awesome, thank you. I hope there are continued improvements to it in next release. OMG Zeiss is now on the A.I. Train ...

Here is a link to start your 60-day trial of CMMobserver - https://www.zeiss.com/metrology/us/c/zeiss-cmmobserver.html?vaURL=www.zeiss.com/cmmobserver

Looks like Common Datum solves my alignment question about bore patterns.

I'm glad your issue seems to be resolved Jason. For anyone coming to this forum in the future, here's a Knowledge Baset Article on the topic - https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=454224

Thank you, Zak.

Having done this numerous times throughout the years I've been using these systems, 100% beneficial to the programmer. Great idea.

Check it out! https://portal.zeiss.com/academy/video-tube/imt/87496/Cee6NyY5M3YMmcbBrbzdSv This video provides an overview of the New GD&T Engine in CALYPSO, including availability by version, setting the applied standard (ISO vs. ASME), and key user interface enhancements. Additionally, a variety of application use cases and new function highlights are also illustrated to demonstrate the power and capabilities of the New GD&T Engine library.

We have a Zeiss ACURA CMM that has started shutting the drives off for no reason. We have 3 CMM'S in the lab attached to the same air supply but this is the only one giving us a issue. Looking for ideas before I call support. Thanks

Thank you, Richard, You're always very helpful. I really appreciate it! Something about checking "Loose" makes me feel uneasy in measurement software. lol I'm measuring some fairly tight profiles and am trying to coordinate with outside vendors on results, so I'm really trying to make sure I'm doing things as accurately as possible. Does Calypso 2025 have the same behavior in the GDT profile? I want upgrade but am holding off as there seems to be some bugs still being worked out in 2025.

I would generally prefer to use the standard geometry if I can - mainly because I can filter/outlier elimination if needed. You can use an alignment inside of the GD&T engine, but you have to switch over to "Loose".

One more link from our side 🙂 How to Evaluate the Distance Between Planes?

Hello smart people! I'm trying to get up to speed on the new GD&T engine and profile characteristics. I have a couple of questions... 1) I get different results if I use the feature itself (a cone in this case) as opposed to using a freeform surface created from the cone in the GDT profile characteristic. Which is the correct way to inspect profile? 2) It looks like you can't use an alignment in the GDT profile characteristic. For example, I used to use a best fit alignment created from a bore pattern in my profile characteristic to use a hole pattern as a tertiary datum. How would I do that in the GDT profile characteristic? Thanks as always for your help! BTW... I'm using Calypso 2024

I would not follow the instructions of that YouTube video for a Plane to Plane distance. The Projected Point Distance is incorrectly built as the Point being reference is not an actual measured point/value (you can see this by looking at the funny looking man ) In addition, if you open up the actual distance that is created, you will see that it is not referencing the actual Plane. For a standard Plane to Plane, you would utilize the Linear Distance tool, and then select the two surfaces (this would be similar to constructing a Symmetry Plane inside of Calypso - great for the ability to measure the Envelope condition, and also be used for MMC/LMC if needed) . Unfortunately this will not work if the Planes face the same direction (step heights). In those cases, you would most likely use the Project Point Distance, but for one of the Planes, you will need to either just measure that surface as a Point, or a Fitting Point (average of the entire surface). LCS is essentially like creating an alignment inside of Calypso, and these are very useful if you need the nominal location to change to where that new coordinate system would be located/oriented. Datum Systems are what you will need to construct for any GD&T. Both LCS and Datum Systems can be used for global alignments (Main Alignments - By Coordinate Systems) - great for viewing Surface Comparisons to datum alignments. No you do not need to convert the mesh to a cad to perform evaluations without a model. Instead of defining nominal geometry, you just hop straight into things like the fitting element. So say for a Plane, you wouldn't use Construct - Plane - Auto Plane; you would use Construct - Plane - Fitting Plane. As for the Calypso questions, yes, but very rarely anymore. It's great if I have a legacy program written in Calypso, and I haven't re-wrote it inside of Inspect (or also great for testing correlation between the two).

Well - in Inspect you can measure distance of planes only if they are opposing via symmetry plane and GD&T independant. But for measuring distance as depth i am using kartesian method. I use selected points on model via Fitted point, right click on nominal plane and select restore points. This will make center point from plane ( honestly i don't know how to obtain exact center of any plane ) Now measure projected distance. Just report ordinary distance without axis definition. Now the hard part of a question. If you don't have a cad model, then you have to make your elements via selection on mesh - this will create actual element. Now just show i-Inspect -> Dimensions -> Copy as nominal element. Now this way you can make alignment. In treeview you can right click on that alignment system and select "Use as Local alignment" - it will correct XYZ cube on left bottom corner. And if you want you can now make nominal elements with drawing exact dimensions - but instead selecting fitting element you can use existing actual element ( "link existing ... element" )

Hi Chad, plane to plane: Global Datum system vs local coordinate system: I never thought to much about this honestly, but this is how i use it and it works: Global Datum system is for aligning the mesh to the cad and the local coordenate systems are for gd&t stuff. You can evaluate a mesh without a CAD. Of course with some limitations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt3O6q0dNRc&t=187s

This is for a vehicle, and the 4 pads are where this part gets mated to another part on the vehicle. This is why, in my brain, I was thinking symmetry, from a functional standpoint, made sense.

First off, I'm kind of a newb and dummy with the GOM software still. What inspection functions do I use to evaluate the plane to plane distance, in relation to a datum structure? I'm just trying to figure out best practices for evaluating with no nominal CAD model. While I'm at it, can anyone explain to me the difference between a Local Coordinate System vs a Datum System? Why are these two different things and where to I use them? Doing evaluations with no nominal CAD model, do I need to covert Mesh to CAD? And for my Calypso folks, does anyone else add an STL machine tab and just do their evaluations in Calypso? See attached. @Norbert Bendl @Richard Shomaker @Norbert Bendl

Ich kann mich Jens nur anschliessen. Besorg dir die einschlägigen Normen und lies sie dir gründlich durch. Hier kannst dir einen Überblick verschaffen wo was drin steht: https://messraum.net/normung/

@Robert Frisch Are you sure these are not datum targets for a fixture?

How far away from the origin is the center of the slot? Is that the 77mm distance? Your planes are extremely skinny, so you will struggle to use a Symmetry Plane to get a proper clocking for this. Calypso has to take the feature axis and project it to the origin, so imagine you’ve taken a plane that is only at max 1mm wide, and projected it say 10x or more away, any calculation error in the rotation will get amplified. In cases like this, I’ve had great success with using Free Form Surface to create the rotation axis for me. Create an alignment that is your A B alignment, create a FFS that is your Datum C planes, make sure the FFS lives in that A B alignment, evaluation - best fit - only allow rotation around the main axis, create alignment. This alignment you create will become your A B C alignment. I can post some screenshots once I get into the office later if needed.

Hi, you still look onto the Report template, but you should look onto the report master -> please select in the Report styles explorer the "Style new (A4)" Maybe this video helps for better understanding: I created a new report style (which has no elements on its Report Master), copied the Title Template from the Inspect Style (which does not contains the Report title) element (as this element is located on the Report master of the Inspect report stylw) and select the report master of the new created style and simply added a "Report Title" element - I changed also the background color for a better visibility -> this element from the Report master is also visible on the template then change_reportmaster.mp4

Maybe try from the top menu. Resources Characteristic settings editor PiWeb Reporting Display plots in report In that you can toggle them on and off.

If you are using a polyline for the Planes, check the nominals in the polyline. If the third column is not zeroes, then this can cause what you are seeing. You have to check every point in the polyline. I have found many times that CAD models will sometimes allow points to be imbedded into a surface, causing this type of affect.

Pos. 7 ist ein theoretisches Maß (TED), darf demnach keine Toleranz haben (siehe DIN EN ISO 1101 Absatz 10 "TED dürfen nicht toleriert werden"), insofern ist eine Auswertung dieses Maßes nicht im Sinne der Norm (kann aber im Rahmen des Fertigungsprozesses sinnvoll sein, um den Werkern ein Maß zu liefern, an dem sie sich orientieren können). Bei Pos. 1 ist nicht klar, welche Fläche gemeint ist: die linke oder die rechte im Schnitt A-A, oder beide gemeinsam. Im letzten Fall sollte eigentlich ein "2x" über der Umrahmung sowie ein "CZ" - combined zone - hinter "0,02" stehen. Übrigens empfehle ich dringend, euch die ISO 1101 zu besorgen und gründlich zu studieren, sie ist essentiell und umfassend, wenn es um Form und Lage geht.