Composite Profile

[[To...]]

Using 2022 (sp6),without FFS.  Does Calypso have the ability to set up a composite profile?  On newer version?

[[Je...]]

That isn't a composite. its 2 separate profile requirements (a composite would only show a single symbol shared between both FCFs). A composite can also only be a refinement and have all the same modifiers.

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hey Jeff, Due to an email conversation, I believe it was intended to be composite even though it wasn’t drawn correctly. If it was drawn correctly, would it be legit? If so, how would Calypso handle it?

By modifiers, are you referring to the unequal distribution? 

Without going into more detail, I don’t think the engineer understands the degrees of freedom he is using, though I believe I understand what he is trying to do. Will be in discussions with him today.  Will keep you posted.

Edited November 5

[[Ri...]]

I have not seen a composite FCF using a modifier "U" in the true construct of a Composite.

However, yours shown as is, is just a refinement of the control back to Datum K.

In order to satisfy the refined profile, your first profile will suffer some offset from nominal to Datum K.

[[To...]]

Update. Engineer’s superior said to disregard the email I read that referenced the word “composite”.  We’re good. 

[[To...]]

Please take a look at the attached screenshot from the program and comment. 

I don't think there are any issues with upper tier but no so much on lower tier.

With no freeform, I have had to implement the triple K to get a result.  I've seen this methods used by many but have never subscribed to it myself.

I suspected the horizontal planes might be best-fitting about X on 2nd tier profile, but the default printout shows the following text "Restricted degrees of freedom X Y Z Normal Vector", which makes me think it is tied the BA. They're getting better results on their non-Zeiss cmm but I can't confirm how they're doing it. Maybe their software is best-fitting about X.  I'm just looking for some correlation.

When talking with customer about the lower tier, I explained that the vertical planes were constrained about Y and Z to K, but on the horizontal planes, they were only constrained about Y and not X. The customer replied that the horizontal planes weren't important to which I replied, "OK, that's fine. I can live with that."    Maybe a revision will come of this??

Any feedback is much appreciated.

profile example.pdf

[[Ma...]]

I wonder how you have described this profile callout on drawing.

In simple terms - lower tier looks like parallelism, with basic distance from "K", but other planes which are perpendicular to "K" can not have (U), because it's like perpendicularity to "K" with no basic dimension in that direction.