[Lo...] Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I'm curious how sectioning a part and scanning a line or curve across a part compares with these two software's? We have 3 new engineers that came from a place that was running PC DMIS (they think), and make some very negative remarks about the process of sectioning a model and scanning across the part with calypso. Of course none of them know specifically what software or machine type, etc. however say comments like "they could of done that at my last job in like 5 mins", "we use to scan all the way around the part". Also the same comments in regards to not having a model and using unknow contour to get them what they say they need. We have Conturas with Vast XXT (passive scanning), so we get a lot of noise on some of the contours especially when far off nominal. It seems the CMM is fighting to try to get closer to nominal adjusting constantly as it scans creating a bunch of noise. The closer to nominal the smoother the scan becomes. These comments are making their way to people who are asking questions now and I don't have any knowledge of DMIS. The people asking the questions don't understand either. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Cl...] Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I've had some experience with the sectioning/scanning in PC-DMIS. It's not to bad, but I find Calypso a little easier/quicker to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ja...] Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Calypso is much easier (cleaner) to set up and execute a scan, in my opinion, especially if you have the model. In PC-DMIS, you have to establish the control points of the scan (start, direction, end), you have to make sure each component of the CAD model that you wish the scan to cover is selected, you have to make sure that a tolerance value is set appropriately to accommodate the probe diameter, any possible form error, and some wiggle room, you must make sure that the boundary conditions on the scan are set correctly (what type of zone and size and # of passings will trigger the end of the scan). In Calypso, I section the model, select each segment, and create a curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ke...] Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Having a secondary alignment to accurately locate the feature, along with keeping the scan slow, can help with your issues using the XXT. We can do a lot of things on the CMM "in like 5 minutes", but 1) Are they accurate? 2) Are they repeatable? Many (which unfortunately includes some CMM programmers) don't care as long as the results "are green". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Any CMM can run as fast as anyone likes...Doesn't make it accurate and probably a huge reason Zeiss created the Cookbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Jo...] Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I have Pc-Dmis with passive scanning, and Calypso with Vast XT active scanning. I'll take the Calypso/ XT combo every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Am...] Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Yeah sounds like you have a couple guys who have no idea what they are talking about, if they were doing any of that in DMIS "in like 5 minutes" they also didn't care how accurate the results were as long as it gave a number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Lo...] Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 I agree with all above. I have asked them for the name of the software and the name of the machine. No one has answered that yet. When they do I can get an understanding of what they're talking about. I think the xxt noise and their lack of ability to clean it up in UG is the issue. Its easier for them to say the data is not usable rather to tell their boss then to say I don't know how to properly import and correct it. I wont even entertain the time comments because I know it doesn't take long. The only time is takes some time is when doing unknown contours with the speed set very slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Wi...] Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 I use both... Calypso is way faster and more stable and more accurate. PC Dmis is real bad about crashing for no reason(PC Demon they call it) I have called it many other names 🙂 PC Dmis does have its perks though..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[s...] Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Having run PCDmis, Calypso, USoft, Umess, UMessUX, Geopak500, 1000, 2000, and CMM Manager, I can say that Calypso is by far the better software. Can it do everything? No. It comes very close to being able to though. Whenever I run into a person that tries to compare one software to another, I ask a simple question, "How long have you been running the software you like and have you worked with the current software you are comparing it to?" If they never have, then the discussion pretty much ends there. As for "done in 5 minutes", everything was done in 5 minutes to anyone trying to make an invalid point with no foundation to back it up. My reply to the "done in 5 minutes" is, "which 5 minutes are you talking about, when you checked in on the programmer 3 hours after they started it and they said they'd be done in 5 minutes, or the last 5 minutes you saw the program run for?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ro...] Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 I disagree that PCD is a lesser program, or that scanning is more difficult. It may be easier to create a scan in a program that you are more familiar with, but if i was to teach a new hire that had zero programming experience, i would much rather teach them in PCD because in my opinion things just make a little more sense. I've seen first hand perimeter scans being repeatable within tenths (.0001) of an inch on very complex surfaces. Additionally scanning in PCD is a part of the main program and is included in the basic software package, and does not require additional licences (money) like Free form & Curve. PCD does not require you to use different method for line & surface profiles (a scan is a scan) PCD does not require you to go to 2 additional training courses like i had to with free form & curve. PCD allows you to group already scanned features (planes, lines, cylinders, spheres) and create a group for profile of an entire area. PCD will show the feature control frame in the report, you actually create profiles by assigning datum letters to features and building a FCF with all modifiers built in. its also much easier when dealing with Composite tolerance frames. But that's just my personal experience, others may have different experiences. have any of you been the one to tell your VP that the Ferrari sitting in the QC lab cant do a line profile without an extra 10k? it sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ja...] Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Please sign in to view this quote. Great points Roberto. PC-DMIS is a main competitor in the field, no doubt about it. It certainly can perform scanning, and it is nice not having to pay extra. The issue lies in the "complexity" of setting up the scan. There are more steps that you have to take to get the scan to work correctly. In Calypso, you don't have to take as many steps to accomplish the same thing. That being said, PC-DMIS gives you more precise control right up front and really makes sure that you know what you are doing. Furthermore, PC-DMIS is much easier to diagnose when you have values that just don't seem to add up, that is for certain. I find myself cycling through Zeiss windows and fighting with coordinate system geometry to understand what is going on. PC-DMIS spells it all out in one long stretch of code. Calypso rarely crashes and does not strain the eyes. There are pros and cons to each package. The key here is that anybody performing measurements on difficult characteristics that actually necessitate the use of a CMM shouldn't be so nonchalant about their methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 I feel like we are getting into a Matrix discussion here with control..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Wi...] Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Yes i must concur on the composite.....pltz and frtz are much easier with PCDmis..... i like em both for different stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in