Calypso 2023 - Position

[[Ri...]]

A few things that I've noticed so far with Calypso 2023 and the new GDT Position that I'm having issues with.

- There is not an option to do Bore Patterns anymore, so unless the feature is pattern you have to create a Position characteristic for every feature. This can be extremely time consuming unless you use the paint brush function, but even that leads to other time consuming things regarding naming.

- There is not an option to either perform a rectangular tolerance zone or a single axis evaluation.

- A Symmetry Point is no longer a feature of size.



Having said that, it is still a breath of fresh air to be able to handle complex evaluations that either weren't possible or required work arounds that got you "close". You can finally create a DRF where you can clock to a cylinder that has a parallel space axis to the primary/secondary datum (no need for the Parallel Cylinder workaround). Simultaneous evaluation is awesome.

[[Ri...]]

Just found a huge annoyance. If you use MMC/MMB it doesn't link to the characteristic, so you get a separate result for the diameters. I assume that this is due to following the standards, but I haven't found a way to get rid of it, even if I have the same exact evaluation parameters.

People were already complaining about the (.M), and now we have this.


Silver lining, you can have a completely separate tolerance for the MMC/MMB if you wanted to now.

[[Mi...]]

There's no baked in way to simultaneously evaluate the position of multiple features anymore? That can't be right, it's a standard requirement and the new library is supposed to be an improvement?

The only other way I know of to do this is to is a Best-Fit alignment, then position each feature using that alignment as the DRF... then I would use PCM to prevent operators cheating and only measuring individual holes in a pattern.

I was hoping a new GD&T Library would improve the BFBP so it can handle holes where the axis direction changes ( pattern of holes drilled around a shaft) so I don't have to go through the above procedure anymore.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Yes, you can do Simultaneous Evaluation, but you have to setup a Characteristic for each hole, and then you can go in and say these holes belong to this Simultaneous Evaluation.

It can absolutely can handle holes where the axis varies from hole to hole in a bore pattern. It also does the work of taking the nominal a1/a2 angles and rotating them to be in line with DRF axis - saves a lot of work.

There just isn't an easy button of dumping all of the holes into a single Position characteristic - or at least I haven't found one. You can dump a pattern into the Characteristic, and it works, but if they are individual features you cannot.

[[Ri...]]

Here is a quick gif showing what I'm talking about.

[[Ro...]]

😉

[[Mi...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Okay so it is "better" but depending on which use case you actually need more - it ends up being more programming work.

[[Da...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

When you copied the characteristics, I think it must be a bug that the SIM tabs showed up. When you use a fully qualified DRF, there is no sense in building a simultaneous pattern. The pattern can't be best-fitted, when all degrees of freedom are constrained. And when my weary eyes didn't betray me, the SIM tab in the original position characteristic disappeared after choosing the third datum like it should.

Of course, I see that this doesn't change your original concern ... 😐

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hi Daniel, the SIM tab disappeared on the first one because there were no other characteristics that had that same DRF. Once 2-4 were introduced, the SIM tab appeared again. Simultaneous Evaluation would be required for this pattern because of the Material Modifiers on Datum B and Datum C.

[[Da...]]

Oh, yeah, I missed that... You're right.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Does this change mean you cant use an Alignment in the GDT Position?
We have to select Datums?

I have some unique programs where the Trihedron is rotated to specific customer needs.
This will add time to programming.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

To be ASME/ISO compliant you have to build the DRF, but you can switch to the "loose" evaluation which will allow coordinate systems.

[[Ju...]]

Is "loose" evaluation the metrological equivalent to the waller G code CNC function? 🤣

[[Je...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

.

Zeiss in 2023 "We have over 40,000 employees worldwide" 😉 🌍

Zeiss is 2023 "We report record earnings" 💰 📈

Zeiss in 2023 "Yeah, the customers are going to have to beta test Calypso 2023 for us." 😂 💻 🐞

It's the equivalent to "Due to unusually high call volumes" 📞 ⌛ 😡 .which just means "We have chosen to not allocate enough resources to help you."

.

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

This is going to require editing a lot of legacy programs...
Again, more time.

[[Er...]]

Does this mean we can set different position tolerances for the same simultaneous requirments as well as number each position it's separate ballooned number on the drawing? I get it's probably more programming, but this will be helpful for my case.

[[Ch...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Well said Jeff, just bumping this again ...