Calypso GD&T library vs. SmartProfile

[[Aa...]]

Background info:
When we first set up the measurement procedures for our metrology lab, Calypso's handling of geometric specifications was lousy at best.  (This would have been around 2016-2017.) So, at that time, the decision was made to ditch Calypso's reporting and only use the measured points from Calypso and run them through SmartProfile (a third-party software for evaluating measurement results from measured points).
 

Question:

Is there anyone here who has used the new GD&T library and SmartProfilie who can give me an idea of how comparable they are, now?

[[Aa...]]

Shameless bump...

[[Ke...]]

It might be better to explain exactly which specifications were "lousy at best", and if there has been any improvement in them. 

Does anyone else in the group even use SmartProfile? ...IDK.

[[Je...]]

I’m not sure what criteria were used to evaluate Calypso against SmartProfile, but I’m confident the evaluation was flawed. Your company doesn’t know what it’s been missing.

Yes, pre-2018, Profile of a Surface as a singular characteristic in Calypso needed improvement. No argument there. But everything else about the software blew SmartProfile out of the water. And Zeiss didn’t sit still. By 2019, they brought Profile of a Surface up to speed, with further refinements in 2020 and beyond. The new GD&T engine shows promise, but the software is superior even without it.

No disrespect to the great Dr. Greg Hetland, but CMMs are much more than point collectors. Calypso provides feature-based dimensional management and a visual representation of actual-to-nominal geometry. The power is in the pairing: sensor navigation, data acquisition, and evaluation working together seamlessly. Calypso’s reputation is so admired that competitors—looking at you, OGP Zone3—are out here trying to reverse-engineer it.

What your company is doing with Calypso is like hitching a Ferrari to a team of horses. You’ve got the keys to a metrology masterpiece, and you’re letting it idle in the driveway. Fortunately, it’s not too late to put the keys in the ignition and let it prove its superiority.

[[Ri...]]

The biggest thing that Calypso lacked was proper utilization of LMB/MMB and Simultaneous Evaluation. This has largely been addressed with the new GD&T engine. 

The strongest aspect of Calypso has always been its flexibility though. I'm not familiar with SmartProfile, but I believe it was directly integrated into Zone3, which I am familiar with. The biggest complaint I would have about their GD&T engine is that you have to follow a standard, and trying to wiggle out of that is either extremely difficult or impossible. I will say though that I always did like their option to select which version of the ASME standard you wanted to use (1994, 2009, etc.).