PCM code for Stylus System Properties

[[To...]]

I'd like to write a program for qualifying my disc probe on a gauge ring. Much like the qualification routine for an O-Inspect, I want to read the X, Y and Radius value reported from a ring, then have it adjust the the X, Y and Radius properties of the stylus to bring it in.

[[Me...]]

Make sure the stylus you're trying to adjust is active. Use at your own risk!!

setNewGeoStatToActualProbe(x,y,z,i,j,k)
setNewRadiusToActualProbe(r)

[[Cl...]]

Will this code just give you the XYZ & R values, or will it make the changes for you?
What is the advantage of doing it this way as opposed to just measuring the ring
gage and making the adjustments manually from the deviations you get?

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Don't know the answer to your first question.

The advantage is time, plus reducing the risk of a mistake. If I can run a program, have it automatically adjust the values, then measure the circle a 2nd time and output the adjusted data, that just seems like the "Easy Button" on PED's.

Do you ever run the Optics program on your O-Inspect? That does the same thing.

[[Ri...]]

Is this a intellectual exercise or do you have something to measure with a disc probe? If it's the latter, what kinds of tolerance are you up against?

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Both. +/-.0005"

[[Ri...]]

A number years ago, I wrote a routine to qualify a disc probe. The results I got made it unnecessary to go through the "measure ring Gage and adjust stylus data" process. It was fairly involved on the front end but once I got it to run, it repeated very well. If I remember correctly, it took about an hour to get through the steps. There are too many of them to go through here. Shoot me an email and maybe we can arrange for a time to talk it through on the phone.

[[Me...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

The functions will change the active stylus geometry defined in Stylus System Management. You'll need to place the code in the post settings of the feature / characteristic you're using to correct the stylus. If done correctly, you'll be able to automate the correction process like Tom is trying to do. However, there is a substantial risk of collision if the corrections are wrong.

[[Er...]]

I did write one for spherical discs and cylinder probes a while ago, I think some one was whining on the forum about manual qualification.
I took it a bit to far tough, You get prompted to enter length if its a cylinder, and thickness if its a disc then you probe in shaft direction the first time you run it. Nothing else. It adjust strategies, measure twice with a different force and even calculate and update rigidity. But I don't know if the software actually uses that, buts it's not 0 anymore 🙂

And if there are more than one disc/cylinder on your configuration, it will run that one to.
And the r&r is amazing compared to manual qualification.

[[Cl...]]

Phillip, you state that "You'll need to place the code in the post settings of the feature / characteristic you're using to correct the stylus" Does it matter into which of the two databases you insert the code?

[[Er...]]

You can place it where ever you wish. What Phillip is trying to say is, if you run it from pre-settings of your feature/characteristic/program. You are likely to be missing the data you need. So if you use it in the post-settings, you are more likely to have the data you need. And since it's the same feature/char, the active probe is likely to be the one you have in mind to change.

But to be honest, if you need to ask this, I don't think this is for you. And I say this to save you trouble, I showed this syntax to a guy roughly a year ago. He tried to enter the xyz that he got from the sphere feature... Guess how that ended 🙂

Just to avoid the same again, are you guys aware of what values you are supposed to enter?

[[Cl...]]

"But to be honest, if you need to ask this, I don't think this is for you"

Nice, an insult thrown from behind the safety of a computer to start off my Thursday.

[[Er...]]

Hahahaha, what? First, it's was not meant as an insult. And if you took it as one, well, that's not my problem, really, you seems quite easily offended. And it's hard to tell you face to face since were not located on the same continent. Which I would prefer to do, since that involve facial expressions, so misunderstandings is less possible to occur.
Behind the safety of a computer - should that be taken as a implicit threat of any kind or what? 🤣

Let me explain how I interpreted your question:
You ask if it matter in which post-settings you execute from.

post-setting of feature: You have what you need, since the measurement generally occur before post-settings are executed.
post-settings of characteristic: Value for "actual" generally gets pulled from feature before post-settings executes. Hence, you have what you need.

So why would it matter?

So to sum up how I interpreted your question, in my screwed up head: The guy don't know if it matters from where he executes. So he doesn't get the logic methodology of how pcm's "somewhat structured programming" works. He is basically asking about fundamental parts in a more "advanced" context... Well, I'm a nice guy, I'll try to answer the question and also raise a finger pointing out that this might not be a thing to do if you don't know what you are doing. Hence, qualification is a critical thing. Some of the syntax is "un-official" for a reasonable purpose.

And because I'm a guy that truly believes in learning the basic stuff, before you try to accomplish anything else. Don't run, if you cant walk someone said once.
Many times I see a question, and someone posts a snippet of code solving their problem. That's not really helping the person. That is one sort of arrogance in my eyes.
(And I'm guilty of that too.) That only leads to someone attempting to edit code to suit their needs. Yes, it get's you trough the day, but you still need to ask similar questions next week. Instead of pinpoint the particular problem and explain. But who got time for that...

Well, it's not a good idea to go all berserk as soon as you get questioned. We might be very different types of people, expressing in different ways. And English isn't my native language as you clearly should be able to see. Some times it's better to ask for clarification then jump to conclusion that some one is insulting you.

[[Cl...]]

I thought this discussion was over?

There was no need to explain yourself, but now that you have, I understand exactly what kind of person you are.

I'm done with this nonsense.

[[Er...]]

Sorry Tom for trashing the thread, but I guess you have all you need. If not, just say so.

Clarke:
How can it be over with out letting me reply? What kind of retarded point of view is that? Isn't a discussion supposed to go two, or more ways? Or are your damaged feelings, or opinion the only thing that matters?

You start a new thread to whine over arrogance, and then you reply with I understand exactly what kind of person you are.. Tells more about you really.. Preaching high moral, does the opposit. Theres a word for that in swedish. J*vla Fit*a!

You act like a spoild little girl. Can't you handle critique? On May, 10th you wrote, and I quote: I don't know a thing about PCM. So you should be glad that some one has the balls to tell you the truth. I dont think your employer pays you to spend your days, blindly fumbling in the dark with something you can't achive. Or damageing equipmemt and so on.

And as I said, it was not my intention to be arrogant or insulting. Neither is this post. I just say what I think, and if some one feels like I stept on toes, read it again and evaluate from another angle. Still offended? Then go offline and watch CNN or something.. I always tries to help when ever I got some time to spare.. But I will nerver say that Im sorry if I've not done anything obviously wrong. Im not a mean person, but I am honest and stright forward.

If you like to reply, send me a pm.

[[Kr...]]

Hello,

setNewRadiusToActualProbe(r) don´t works at my System (PCM-Editor, Calypso 6.4). "SDO Error -1001 Transfer value to SDO is not defined for these components"

Edit: It works in presettings of features. Sorry

[[Sy...]]

What command is used to call current probe geometry values in order to determine offsets?

[[Da...]]

should be

getProbe().probeVector.x
getProbe().probeVector.y
getProbe().probeVector.z
getProbe().radius

[[Ch...]]

Daniel - and all,

I don't imagine you'd have any method to get the probe calibration limit (not actual sigma value) with PCM or otherwise ?

Thanks,

[[Mi...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hi,
you can get the probe calibration limit by

executeCode("|var| var:=Zeiss.CMMOS.OMVirtualControl actual sdo sdoAccess. (var readStylusCriteriaForSensor: var sdo2SensorSys) getSigmaValue.")

I don't know if there is an easier way.
If you wanna know in addition if the probe calibration limit is activated you can execute

executeCode("|var| var:=Zeiss.CMMOS.OMVirtualControl actual sdo sdoAccess. (var readStylusCriteriaForSensor: var sdo2SensorSys) getSigmaActive.")

[[Ch...]]

Michael,

wow, thank you excellent work.

Cheers mate.

😜 🤠 🧑‍💻

[[Ch...]]

Michael,

couple other questons :

1.) can this be done for styli other than the active stylus ? For example used in a result element for a qualification program ?

2.) What does it mean by limit 'active' ? a) to see if has an actual limit? or b) rather to check if it has a unique defined limit rather than 'global limit' ??

Thank you so much.

[[Mi...]]

Hello Chris,

The commands deal with the active stylus. It doesn't matter if a global value is set and active, or a local value for the active stylus or probe.
What do you want to achieve?

[[Ch...]]

Michael,

Hi, yes. I think the stylus probe calibration is a bit lacking in Calypso, and could be a much better visual utility.

What I would like to use this for is : result elements for a probe qualification program with many probes. Otherwise; calibrating an entire rack of styli; normally we only get a 'default printout'. I do use results element currently; however I have to go in and check each calibration limit manually- seems there must be a better way. Also one of our limits got changed recently, and we have no idea where or if Zeiss keeps records of that, so it is harder to trace.

Also, when you are on an actual CMM, and you go into stylus system management, to see the calibration limit value of anything other that the active stylus, you have to change to that stylus. Seems outdated - should be a simpler way.

I have requested these improvements in "MyVoice".

Thank you.

Chris

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

For added visibility, I encourage you to always post the link to the MyVoice request to the forum. These ideas are definitely reviewed for development and the higher the "vote" count (affected users), the more weight is given to them.