Jump to content

better fit for secondary alignments


Recommended Posts

good morning
I have a base alignment and I am using the best besesystem (). valueA <0005 setting for my base alignment but I would like to use this formula for my secondary alignments the question is either the same formula is used or there is another formula for secondary alignments

EF465995-547B-4645-92DA-300CB6D9BEAB.jpeg

Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19164-better-fit-for-secondary-alignments/
Share on other sites

Wouldn't those both do the same thing? The help guide's entry for differenceSystem (specifically, the wording "characteristics of *an* iterative alignment") leads me to believe that it applies as the break condition for whatever secondary alignment it's set within. If that's the case, using differenceSystem seems safer, as it would minimize the chance of making a typo, or accidentally setting a break condition to be dependent on the returned value of a different, similarly-named alignment.
It is just a variable, like x, y, or z. When used as part of the baseSystem break condition, it reports the calculated difference between the current and "expected" base alignment. However, when used as part of the differenceSystem break condition, it reports the calculated difference of the secondary alignment that break condition is used in.
You got it right Owen, I was just intrested in why you recommended the syntax differenceSystem(). Its absolutely the standard way, no doubt about that. I just had some other things I tought about, a bit more obscure, and as I said, pure intrest in how you think. 😃
we have a 4.6 version of calypso, but I can not find the differenceSystem().ValueA function and I can not make the secondary alignments run in a better setting and I tried to generate this current getActual("Alignment1"). valueA <0.005 but it does not work
×
×
  • Create New...