Upper management sent me to a Zeiss/Calypso demo yesterday. They setup and measure a part I have been measuring with PCD for over a year now with no issues and Calypso wouldn't report the true position because the FCF isn't Y14 compliant (according to aplications engineer at demo). I brought to his attention that the print doesn't refer back to Y14 and his responce was it is implied which I can understand, but why will PCD give me position to the same FCF as he was using?
Upper management sent me to a Zeiss/Calypso demo yesterday. They setup and measure a part I have been measuring with PCD for over a year now with no issues and Calypso wouldn't report the true position because the FCF isn't Y14 compliant (according to aplications engineer at demo). I brought to his attention that the print doesn't refer back to Y14 and his responce was it is implied which I can understand, but why will PCD give me position to the same FCF as he was using?
Can you do it with Xactmeasure? Prior to Xactmeasure pc-dmis did not generate errors for non-compliant GD&T. With Xactmeasure you will get errors or just not be able to select the things you want if you are trying to build non-compliant position dimensions. Pc-dmis is very powerful and flexible, which also makes it susceptible to "misuse". It is up to the programmer to have sufficient GD&T knowledge to use pc-dmis properly.
As an aside, drawings that have GD&T symbols but do not state which standard governs the interpretation of those symbols is problematic. My company handles this by stating in our quality manual that if the drawing does not specify we default to ASME Y14.5M-1994. However this does not prevent us bidding on and taking orders for parts whose drawings are non-compliant because the customer is writing the check, not ASME. These are black arts we dabble in.
Xactmeasure checkes the true position exactly the same a legacy true position. IMO it is either the PCD or the Calypso interputation of the standard is wrong. Hopefully this will be enough of an issue that management will stay with B&S cmm's and PCD.
i have calapso (caylpso) and i have found it to be the most unfriendly software that i have ever used. I think Zeiss just wanted to do something totaly different then anybody else and make it more complicated then it needs to be. I have found that the old school Geomeasure was 100% better along with PCD (even though i am still new to PCD it was a lot easier to pick up).
(i have calapso (caylpso) and i have found it to be the most unfriendly software that i have ever used) Wow I wonder if they really changed Calypso a lot. I used it about 6 years ago and picked it up right away. Then came to where I am now and had to learn pcdmis. My impression then was that while pcdmis was harder to learn it is more flexible and lets the user have more control over every thing.
