Running Modus

Struggling with your Equators?

Or just curious? I am not sure if you can or not.

bfire85 , learning a lot actually. Engineers here are requiring to report the gd&t callouts. My current way of using the Equators doesn't allow me to use gd&t. One way is to get a CMM that runs Modus, export a .cal file, and upload it to an Equator. You can also retrofit a CMM to run Modus, buy a new CMM that runs modus, send parts and a PO to Renishaw and they'll generate the .cal file for you, or purchase a conversion software like origin.

None of my CMMs run Modus nor have I used Modus on a CMM before, I don't have a spare CMM, probably not going to buy a new CMM just to create Equator masters, boss isn't going to like sending parts to Renishaw nor spending money on a conversion software.

Just talked to my Renishaw guy, He says golden compare sometimes works if the tolerances aren't too tight. I'm looking at cylindricity of 0.001" and diameters of 0.0005".

bfire85 , learning a lot actually. Engineers here are requiring to report the gd&t callouts. My current way of using the Equators doesn't allow me to use gd&t. One way is to get a CMM that runs Modus, export a .cal file, and upload it to an Equator. You can also retrofit a CMM to run Modus, buy a new CMM that runs modus, send parts and a PO to Renishaw and they'll generate the .cal file for you, or purchase a conversion software like origin.

None of my CMMs run Modus nor have I used Modus on a CMM before, I don't have a spare CMM, probably not going to buy a new CMM just to create Equator masters, boss isn't going to like sending parts to Renishaw nor spending money on a conversion software.

Just talked to my Renishaw guy, He says golden compare sometimes works if the tolerances aren't too tight. I'm looking at cylindricity of 0.001" and diameters of 0.0005".

I had a feeling that was the issue. Hence why I never went with the Equators. Great concept, but when it's apples-to-oranges comparisons, I knew the headache would be unreal.

I don't think there is a way to run both PC-DMIS and Modus on the same CMM. My boss here just left Renishaw a year or so ago and he says that a Modus retrofit involves replacing all the control elements, Scales, controller, etc. After all that you can't get the machine to run PC-DMIS anymore.

I worked with a Renishaw Equator back when it was kinda new. Renishaw gave me a basic script that could be used to make .CAL files with PC-DMIS programs, but is it ever a pain. It has been a few years so things may have changed, but I found that if you measure everything with simple measured features (no scans, no auto features) you can create a .CAL file from PC-DMIS using their script and then export the DMIS program to run on the Equator with just a few tweaks. There were always a couple little things that did not export well like a few parameters, most of which you would want to change for a different machine anyways. However, if I recall, I think I had to redo all the dimensioning in Modus. So, any reporting features available in Modus could be used after the fact, including GD&T stuff.

With that said I really have to suggest you use Renishaw's service of creating programs and .CAL files for you. I often spent 50-60 hours to make relatively simple CMM programs for the Equator. With that many hours spent on each program it would have cost the company far less to have Renishaw do the work and they could use a lot more of the software functions, making a better/faster program.

I do not miss working with an Equator at all. Good luck.

How is this .CAL file created and what does it contain? If you have the script, just go for it?

How is this .CAL file created and what does it contain? If you have the script, just go for it?

The Renishaw Equator is not actually a calibrated CMM. It is better described as a 3D comparator. The way it works is a master part (doesn't need to be perfect) is measured on a traditional CMM. The measured XYZ values of every point is then put into a ASCII text file with a .CAL extension. There is a special format for each point which includes feature names and such. That same master part is then measured on the Equator with an identical measuring routine. The .CAL file is used to "calibrate" the machine for that part. That measuring routine can then be used to measure other parts on the Equator.

If the CMM that measures the master is using PC-DMIS and the Equator uses Modus, it is difficult to make measuring routines for both machines that measure all the exact same nominal points with all the same feature names. It essentially limits you to the features that are available to both softwares.

The Equator may sound like a really convoluted system, but it has the advantage of being very small, light, easy to move around the shop, doesn't need annual calibrations, has a ridiculous move speed and acceleration, and can accurately measure parts in both very cold and very warm environments because you routinely calibrate the machine on the master part. That corrects for thermal expansion changes on both the part and the machine itself.

The major downside is that it runs Modus, a fickle CMM software that really makes me appreciate PC-DMIS. And, the Equator controller itself uses a stripped down version of Windows that is running virtually on Linux. The system is fully locked down so you can't use admin rights to customize anything, add software, or make it secure enough to safely connect directly to a network. The simplest little tasks can take hours of problem solving and workarounds.

Cris_C YUP!

They definitely have their pros and cons. We use them in cells that make only 1 part so a CMM would be nice but its kinda overkill. It takes a lot of time to get a program in and proven and even more time to get operator buy in. Once its set, its pretty good.

I had a situation a few months ago were measurement on a critical diameter was all over the place. For example, Equator would report 0.001" over so they would adjust the CNC down and then the next part could be 0.003" under. So they then would raise it and by over again by 0.004". They spent half a day trying to get it right. Of course they blamed the Equator which forced me to stop what I was doing and check the same part on a CMM. Crossing my fingers, the diameter matched the CMM to the 0.0001". Went as far back to to re run parts on the Equator from the week before and those parts passed. Turned out it was an issue with a boring bar in the CNC.

yup, never a 'problem' with them, always a problem with the inspection department.

yesterday as a matter of fact, I had some parts on a CMM failing centerline dimension. Operators cleaned and recalibrated the probes and made sure the part was extra clean only to find out the operators were not removing the shavings from the chuck as they reloaded parts in the lathe.