Best setting for Order of Run of Program, CNC Presettings

[[ST...]]

Long-time user of Calypso here,

I've recently started working in place that uses Order of Run by Feature with the feature list ordered to minimize probe changes.

As I have programmed with PCM and Loops in the past I found it more convenient to use 'by Characteristic' and force my preferred order using several Utility Alignments. [involve a feature in the Utility alignment]

Now I've got to resolve my older style with that already established. They don't have PCM here and many advanced software features such as Loops and Patterns are discouraged. I had to fight just for them to let me use Start Alignments.

Others ran one of my programs with Order of Run by Feature and complained it took too long. Well obviously...

Can anyone remind me of the advantages of each Order of run selection? Is there any great advantage of one over the other?

Thanks,

[[Ke...]]

In my experience, I have found that order of run by Feature with the feature list ordered to minimize probe changes can cut some time off the program run-time.
I can see why they may frown on using utility alignments to force probe changes. Programs should really only be as complex as they need to be, in order to accomplish the task without sacrificing accuracy *and* repeatability.

Perhaps, the "great advantage" would be to use Plan-Navigation-Sort Features for Optimal Navigation?

On the plus sude... now you have some additional questions to ask potential employers, when you interview.

[[Mi...]]

Very short programs it might make sense to run from Characteristics list, but anything more complicated and you're going to end up with very inefficient programs, with extra probe changes, poor optimization, and unhelpful order of the reporting for the person reading it.

You also are likely using alignments where there is no need from the way you worded that. Outside of poor mans profile (Space points), or small features that move a lot, there isn't a lot of real need to measure features in anything but a looped, proper, Base Alignment. All the Characteristics that use datums create their own coordinate systems.

It sounds very much like you learned on DMIS or MCosmos or *insert other sequential run software here* and are trying to program Calypso like that, but haven't realized that Calypso doesn't limit you like those softwares do/did.

In Calypso, the first real feature measured in the feature list, could be the very last thing reported in the Characteristic list. By running from Features list, you can program all the end points of one feature, and the start point of the next feature to be as close as possible to each other.... then report in whatever order makes the most sense, they are completely independent of each other. Making for very efficient programs. At least until you start measuring things within secondary alignments, program optimization starts becoming harder and harder the more secondary alignments you have because you have to measure those datums first. In Calypso you can measure your toleranced feature before measuring the datums.

The probe system should never be put away then picked back up, the probe should almost never measure something in one area, then go measure something else, then come back to the first area, sub clearance planes should be used to reduce movement, etc.

Edit: To give a piece of advise rooted in my own experience vs a long time programmer vs modern methods. Start being more receptive to the modern Calypso training and best practices. Otherwise a more recently trained programmer is going to come in and do this to you. In the chart below, the faster programs all loop their Base Alignments, measure things more thoroughly and correctly, less probe changes, less probe systems on the machines, instant CpK improvements by removing measurement errors. The cycle time and reliability improvements meant our facility needed 1 less CMM to keep up with production in that area...

[[Ke...]]

Running from the characteristic side is better then the feature side. I think programming from the feature side is easier,
but if you run from the characteristic side you can have minimum probe changes and head rotations just like the feature
side.
Two reasons to run from the characteristic side are.
1. You can see what is red, yellow or green while running the part.
2. Running from the feature side takes longer. When the program is done running it has to calculate all of this data
before you see the results on the screen or get a printout.

[[ST...]]

Morning,

It's been a while since I got to use PCM and loops - yes I was away from advanced topics in Calypso for a while- I seem to recall things worked smoother linking individual members of a loop when running by Characteristic, ie. in the report the 1st item matched the first identified physical member, and so on. Can I be sure of that with order by Feature? I recall experimenting with this years ago and concluded I was best to use by Characteristic, but things may have changed I guess.

Thank you,

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

If you organize your features by stylus system/stylus, you can eliminate unnecessary probe changes and head rotations. If you program using sub-clearance planes and position points, running from features list ensures they run as intended.

Screenshot 2024-08-22 135704.jpg

[[Ni...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I'm sorry but can you explain how running from the characteristic side will have minimum probe changes and head rotations?
The characteristic side is usually structured by how your blueprint is bubbled.
I've had many blueprints from different customers and companies where the bubbles are all over the place. Even the ones that follow a pattern will have measurements from two features that need two different probes to get it.

That means there will be a lot of back and forth and more probe changes/rotations from the characteristic side.
I think the best way to program is the way Tom Oaks described, since you can have calypso run your program the way you want it. So if you organize it so it focuses on one axis at a time, it will go a lot faster. Makes up for the calculation of data which does take longer on the features side.

[[Wo...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

You can make it run faster from characteristic's side, although it will take longer to program. I always program from characteristic, all it takes is some planning ahead about probe changes and rotations. One example is feature patterns. If you have a pattern of holes with counterbores. You want to measure CB diameter, depth and hole diameter. If you run by feature pattern it will measure all the CBs, then all depths and then all holes, using much more travel between features. From the characteristic side you have much more control. I'm sure there is a way to separate the measurements on the features side too to achieve the same thing (I know using automatic calculation of feature order can break up patterns), but I still prefer to use characteristics as I know exactly what's going to be measured.
Another thing is I find it much easier when it comes to masking to avoid measurement. And you don't have to structure the characteristics the way the print is bubbled. I have the bubble number in front of the characteristics name and just display the result alphabetically if someone wants it.

I have seen this discussion many times here and on the old forums and came to conclusion that there is no "better" way. It's just different and both ways have advantages. Usually if you've learned to program one way, that's the way you prefer.

Thanks

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hi Stanley! Thanks for posting about this. I hope that things otherwise with your new company are going well and allows for career growth.

That was a unique strategy that you devised regarding run by characteristic using PCM to minimize probe changes.

Zeiss seems to optimize cycle time for measurement plans based on run by feature. In my experience, Zeiss has done the heavy lifting for me regarding cycle time optimization. Run by feature seems to be the best setting for nearly all CNC runs.

I can understand where it would feel strange switching after having used a proven custom workflow for years. My honest opinion, though, is that you will probably be best served by accepting the run by feature setting, although ultimately you'll have to make that decision.