[Fl...] Posted September 25 Share Posted September 25 Hello everyone, What is the minimal requirement for an offline planner seat, in 7.4 version ? I don't see any information... Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Lu...] Posted September 25 Share Posted September 25 (edited) Hello, There is not a planner specific requirement. This is the minimum system requirement listed in the 7.4 release notes: Edited September 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ka...] Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 Hi Florent, I strongly recommend taking your time to try out the software as a trial version first. We use the Planner intensively and, if all goes well, we can achieve perhaps 80% realistic simulation. There are at least two handfuls of pitfalls and problems. The investment in Planner/Simulation should be carefully considered. Unfortunately, the new Planner development in CALYPSO 8.0 is so desolate that it is not (yet) usable. Regards Karsten 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Wo...] Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 Please sign in to view this quote. I think planner and simulation are separate licenses, no? If that's case the planner alone works just fine, the simulation has massive issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[To...] Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 (edited) deleted post Edited September 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Br...] Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 Most important requirement that people/IT fails to recognize is the need for the NVIDIA OpenGL graphics card. This is a must, especially for planner. The graphics card must be set correctly. the Base profile is the standard setting, but the 3d setting should be set to "autodesk motion builder compatible" . For information on how to set this, please follow the Knowledge Base link below: https://portal.zeiss.com/knowledge-base?id=528774 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Fl...] Posted September 29 Author Share Posted September 29 Hello, Simulation is the "cherry on the cake" for me. The emergency is to have the possibilty of programming on my desk, not on CMM (they are very busy...). I know that the simulation is not excellent, but it can be helpfull if it work a little 😉 Thanks for your answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Wo...] Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 Simulation is great - when it works 😉 I've had some big manifolds that I was able to program (over 2k dimensions) and then completely test with simulation before the setup was finished on the CNC machine, with practically all kinks ironed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ka...] Posted September 30 Share Posted September 30 Please sign in to view this quote. Yes, absolutely. But that's exactly where the problem lies! If it works... Apart from poor stability, the lack of a physical environment for many CMM machines, interfering geometries, XXT probe trees, etc., the results of the simulation are simply not reliable. Too often, collisions, shaft probing or contact with the XXT sensor are not detected. Likewise, reliable simulation of the measuring space is more a matter of luck. In general, the central task, namely 100% correct identification of collisions of any kind, is not implemented. The software is sufficient for preliminary work at the offline workstation, but no more than that. And for the price of around €30,000 per workstation, it is rather inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Jo...] Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 Simulation is too broken in 2025 to use. i dont know why they even keep the option in the menu. (does it work for anyone?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Jo...] Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 Actually.... The 0404 service patch seems to have fixed my simulation issues! Will test next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Fl...] Posted October 4 Author Share Posted October 4 Hello, thanks for your feedback! Sorry for my bad english, I'm french so very bad with foreign languages 😁 My boss just approved the purchase a planner license... via Doogle. Why an old-fashioned Doogle, and not via ZLMT? I have no idea; he always choose a non-standard solution for everything anyway, which we're used to here... 😁 Anyway, I told him that the simulation (planner) will probably be imperfect, and he replied that it will give him a reason to negotiate other things in the future (maybe a curve licence). That's one way of looking at it : always think about future opportunities.😅 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Fl...] Posted October 4 Author Share Posted October 4 *Dongle, not Doogle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ma...] Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 We have a machine with dongle, but i believe for this type you will obtain it. If you copy license keys to other pcs then you can tranfer easily dongle to work elsewhere. And i don't think this is obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ka...] Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 Please sign in to view this quote. Hi Florent, Yes, that's also been my frustrating experience with French management (bosses) over the years. They decide something and if it doesn't work, the world has to change so that it does work. In the end, you have to live with the planner and try to make this desolate piece of software useful somehow. Good luck and don't give up hope for improvement. 🙂 About licences: The modern approach would be a floating licence. However, Zeiss does not (yet) offer this. It is therefore irrelevant whether it is tied to a computer via a dongle or via the CPU ID. Best Regards Karsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Je...] Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 Please sign in to view this quote. Dongle is far from obsolete. Much of the US uses dongle due to its reliability and flexibility (greater than 90% of users are dongle based) . It also utilizes ZLMT to activate as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Wo...] Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Please sign in to view this quote. I think 90% of users are dongle based because it's the best available option atm. I would still say a floating license for planner would make it more flexible. Somebody else needs to use Planner? Just release the license from my computer and they can use it on their station. No need to unplug and plug the dongle that can get damaged this way. I believe our Siemens NX works this way and it's just better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Fl...] Posted October 23 Author Share Posted October 23 Hi everyone ! I start to work on the planner. I don't understand how positionning to the start on the machine. Can someone help me ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ka...] Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 (edited) Hi Florent, Wellcome to the abyss "Planner" 🙂 Wich CALYPSO version do you use? Planner up to CALYPSO 8.0 has not been further developed for years. From version 8.0 onwards, the software is proactively unusable due to extremely slow processing. Positioning the component correctly on the virtual machine is very tricky. One wrong click in the sequence and you have to start all over again. The problem is that the base system has to move correctly with it. In the end, it is positioned correctly, but you don't really benefit from all the effort. -Not every CMM is stored as a virtual machine in the Planner. -You cannot add a probe rack in the virtual machine. -No collisions with interfering geometries such as probe racks or other parts located on the Marmor plate are detected. -No collision with the machine's own geometry is detected. -In most cases, no collision with the table is detected either. -A message indicating that an end stop has been reached is only generated under certain conditions. -The simulation is much slower. As I do not see any advantage in simulating the machine, I do not use this feature at all. My urgent recommendation: don't do it !!!! It is highly unlikely that the planner in Calypso 8.x will ever be better. But to be honest, I have no hope that it will be. Regards Karsten Edited October 24 Add CMM text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[No...] Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 (edited) Please sign in to view this quote. It's only tricky if you absolutely need to use those fancy "position-by-clicking" functions. I don't, instead I mostly use the translation / rotation input fields. "Drag base system" has to be active while moving the part, but that's the default. But one thing is true: Although Planner makes you think so, it's not really capable of simulating all the stuff on the granite plate 100% accurately. For me it's a tool to check for collisions. For that I don't need the CMM simulation at all. Please sign in to view this quote. Sad but true. Please sign in to view this quote. Ahem..... But it's true, you cannot add any type of probe rack. Especially the lack of a ProMax simulation is annoying, since it's moving and one would probably like to check it for collisions. Please sign in to view this quote. At least partly true. I can't confirm alll of it as I don't use it. Please sign in to view this quote. THAT is really hilarious - in a bad sense. That the virtual machine can travel way beyond its physical limits without any warning message is something I never understood, even though I don't use it. It makes the name "simulation" sound ridiculous. Please sign in to view this quote. That's because it's not meant to be an accurate simulation of a physical CMM's speed, but mainly checks for collisions. And that can be a demanding task with complex part models. Please sign in to view this quote. I'm not THAT dismissive towards it. It's a matter of what you expect. DO NOT expect a 100% simulation of a physical CMM's behavior. Expect a tool that enables you to check for collisions offline. It has its annoying bugs, but when you've learned to work around or ignore them, it can be a useful tool. If that alone is worth its money is another story. Edited October 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ka...] Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 Norbert, Thank you for seeing some points in a less negative light. I agree that the tool is useful, but you have to be aware of the pitfalls. Zeiss promises a Porsche, but the customer gets an R4. Both cars drive differently, though... 🙂 About probe racks: No racks are available for XXT probe plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Fl...] Posted October 24 Author Share Posted October 24 Hello, It's ok now ! Sorry guys but for the moment, I really like the simulation ! Of course, if we have in mind that is not 100% sure to avoid 100% of collisions. My first program passed succesfully on one time on the CMM this morning, because I work on the simulation before. 2 or 3 collisions detected by the planner. So it can help ! I'm on 7.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[No...] Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 Please sign in to view this quote. I wonder what you would say if you saw how Planner/Sim. works with an O-Inspect. That's not even an Isetta 🤣 Plus Zeiss sold us an additional 600€ graphics dongle for optical simulation back then, which isn't even necessary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ch...] Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 Agree, I just simulate the Z RAM and probe in most cases. In rare case I'll simulate probe rack and machine to ensure clearance, but performance is too slow with them. If performance wasn't an issue - I probably would prefer to have them. It's not my cpu, I have 80+GB GPU RAM and 128GB RAM on intel Core9. Yeah I agree, allowing the CMM to travel in X or Y beyond the limits is a bit silly. I would like to actually have the option to determine if I'm going to hit an end stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[No...] Posted October 27 Share Posted October 27 Please sign in to view this quote. Maybe performance would improve if they would use something like CUDA for the collision checks. My observation is that as the complexity of geometry surrounding the stylus increases, preformance drops more and more. GPUs are optimized for tasks like this, so why not use this capability? 1 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