Step Points

[[Mi...]]

Hi All,

Does anybody have some tips on Step Points? Better to scan up the step or down? XXT vs XT?

I have a task where they would be very useful, but I just tried it on a similar geometry and the results were lackluster, when it calculated the results are fairly close to other methods, but it doesn't like to reliably calculate and it takes FOREVER to calculate, even on a very powerful PC, for some reason It's struggling to iterate.

 

I did the scan with 4 different ruby sizes, 1.5mm, 1.8mm, 3mm, and 5mm. If I run repeat attempts different ones actually calculate.

I've used a step width between 0.005mm to 0.04mmm, speed as low as 1.25mm/s. No filtering/Outlier. I've scanned longer and shorter paths, No obvious difference between anything.

 

 

 

[[Cl...]]

Doing this, I only ever tried scanning up (XXT). Worked well for me.

Edited Wednesday at 04:37 PM

[[Ke...]]

Unless I'm scanning an incredibly short/long feature, I usually usa a 0.05mm to 0.10mm step width; I try to make sure that I don't collect "too much" data... maybe 5-7k points for "larger" features

[[Cl...]]

I've also found that scanning slower is better.

[[Ma...]]

Always try and scan up. Pulling instead of pushing, less tension on the stylus and reduces surface roughness inflection when not applying the filters. I generally use 3 point per every nominal point used in the definition, for example, nominal defined with 100 points, I’ll use 300 points to scan. This will allow for triangulation to set the correct point vector as it lies on the surface.