2D Line Recall

[[Jo...]]

Need to make a manual 2d line on a "flat". This has to be done manually during measuring run due to the flat not being clocked to any feature so it can be in a different place every time. Problem is I cannot get it to recalculate each time automatically so the numbers are based off original program position.

[[Ma...]]

And what is a problem here? You can choose to measure feature manually, but why you want to recalculate nominals?
Is that 2d line part of base alignment?

[[Jo...]]

no.. 2d line on run could be +x or +y or whatever....nom was done +x so when not in +x numbers revert back to +x do instead of getting a x pos of -0.300 and +1.735 y pos , I will get something like +1.445x and -1.225 y. Line is not updating to correct position. I have to open feature and check the "rec nom" box in order for it to work....which is not what i want or need.

[[Ma...]]

Again - why need to recalculate? I don't know what XY pos you are reffering to - use some sort of cuts.
Manually measured feature will report actual direction.

Perhaps drawing / screenshot / picture could help to understand.

[[Ke...]]

Pics would definitely help...

Are there any local features that "move with the line" that you can use to create a quick manual secondary alignment from?
...or maybe do a quick manual 2d line to clock in a seconary alignment, and then have the CMM take the measurement in CNC?

As far as recalculating nominals, you can probably recall the line and use formulas (getActual) to repopulate the nominal information?

[[Jo...]]

xy positions. its not calculating back to the actual probed points. So if the nominal was X -0.300 and Y -1.735 and I probe at X +1.735 and Y -0.300..... points of the line read X +1.735 and Y-1.735....which throws calculations way off.

[[Ju...]]

It's not possible to measure from a specific feature? Simple Distance has a 3D option that disregards orientation.

[[Jo...]]

I have a search that automatically finds the flat. Works fine, however I would like to put in a manual option if the search produces a unusable result. This flat has two uses... one will clock a secondary alignment, and two will be used to turn a rotary table to it. I have the "search line" and "manual line" set to be recalled into an third line depending on results. The problem still lies in the manual line due to it not calculating back correctly depending one what position around the part it lies.

[[Jo...]]

just found away. Instead of recall, I did a theoretical feature and changed position callout from a1 and a2 to start point endpoint. then used formula to the two manual points. Now the line updates to correct position.

[[Ma...]]

I would suggest training - this smells bad

[[Jo...]]

works like a charm and does exactly what i expect it to do now. it was the A1 and A2 that was causing the problem.

[[Jo...]]

and that right there is why i have not posted on here for over a decade. would been easy if there was a getAct().normAngle had to search for getAct().plcn Since I was using recall feature points, the norm angle was not updating. Once I swictched from A1/A2 on recall to x/y x1/y1..... everything works. The line(s) show in correct locations and the constructed perp line as well.

If i just had 1 or 2 flats, I would have just scanned a circle and then min coord point to find flat.....

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

First off, you don't recall points into a 2D Line. This is likely the source of most of your frustration. The order of the points determines the direction of the line and A1/A2 logic. You recall points into a 3D line.

2D Line = measured directly
3D Line = calculated/recalled.

Your solution should be to locate a single flat first. Use that single flat to orient and measure the others. It appears you are trying to do everything in a single step when in reality this is a multi-step process.

Based on what I've picked up from this:
Scan ~120° of your diameter, assuming this is XT. If XXT you will need to use single points and iterate this due to passive scan.
Get min point.
Create secondary alignment to that point.
Take point or point set at 90° increments.
Get min point to find "lowest" flat.
Create secondary alignment to that point
Use min point to determine chord length based on OD vs point distance from center.
Scan 2D Line centered on new alignment based on min point. Established length of scan should be a formula based on chord length calculation from actuals.

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I also use the "measured" vs "calculated" reasoning. However, when I take 2 points on a surface that will eventually become a line for an origin or reference, if I use a 3d line, the origin value will be off 1 probe radius as it recalling the midpoint value of each point. If I recall the points into a 2d line, the origin will be correct as it recalls the midpoint value plus the radial offset or the contact point. In this case, I put in into the "measured directly" category.

[[Jo...]]

I "recall feature points" into 2d lines all the time, but most of the time, I am already in the correct orientation so it does not give bad results. Scanning the OD does not work in this situation due to multiple Flats and I do not want it picking a "partial" flat. But, by not using the a1 a2 to determine the line, once I switch to x/y and x1/y1 everything worked exactly the way I wanted. Only draw back was now the manual probing has to be done in the correct order, so I had to do another "failsafe" check.

I use the scan and min cord point method a lot on other programs and it works perfectly, it was just in this instance it did not.

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

.
Josh, I genuinely apologize for the negative response you encountered. It's disheartening that users might feel hesitant about contributing. I'm grateful you posted this topic; it expanded my understanding of Calypso. Thank you.

I wish I could say your experience was isolated. Unfortunately, users sometimes face an elitist attitude with remarks like "you should know better" or "That question was asked years ago." It's a sour tone that needs to change.

Thankfully, many outstanding, friendly people contribute here, whom I admire and learn from.

A solution might require overhauling the Zeiss forums. Imagine a more Discord-like space, albiet positive and professional. Key focus: enabling unrestricted information sharing. People could ask questions, engage in more in-depth discussions, or simply connect with fellow Zeiss users (I believe the latter should be our Primary Datum).

There should be a lounge, a "quick question" room, and a direct connection to Zeiss's knowledge base driven by modern search infrastructure.

Come for the information, stay for the community 🙂

It's possible, and I'm down for it.

.

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Thank you Jeff for your wonderful insight. I wonder what crystal ball you use to peer into our plans and dreams for the future of ZEISS in terms of customer experience. These very topics are on the top of our list for development and implementation in the future. The "KNOWLEDGE BASE" itself is a pilot program in the US region only and is gaining traction in the international application and implementation. The structure of that module itself is under constant construction for faster and more efficient communication of applicable solutions.

I ask that our FORUM users visit the KB and search for the topic you are requesting info on. If you do not see an article that answers your questions, please make a request here to have it added. If you see a KB article that answers someone elses question, please provide that link so they may reference it as well. I may add a "KB Request" posting for articles to be added if our users feel that it would be of benefit to them. As our KB is in a constant state of growth, the articles that tend to be focused on are those that affect the most users frequently (how to install CALYPSO without errors caused by local IT policies, how to upgrade versions properly, how to update and acquire your new licenses, troubleshoot a connection/SQL error etc). If there are others that can be of benefit, my team is always looking for specific topics that would be of direct benefit. While ZEISS SW HELP DESK is a service provided by an SMA, the KNOWLEDGE BASE is essentially a free extension of the SW HELP DESK AEs experiences to the rest of the community in hopes of improving the experience for all users.

I encourage all users to visit our FORUM as well as our KNOWLEDGE BASE and ZEISS ACADEMY for the wealth of information and community involved there. While I understand that some regions offerings may be different, we are all driving in the same direction and focusing on separate tasks to end up with a more robust aggregate.

Jeff, again, thank you again for being a positive guide and contributor for the rest of the community.