hexagon logo

Im a Demis Newbie, Im really good at C@!^pso, what should i know......

Ok so I followed a former boss to a new shop, he needed a programmer, but the problem is that this new shop has a whole host of B&S PC Demis CMM's, and I have all my years of experience in Zeiss Calypso.
As far as I’m concerned the difference couldn’t be any bigger, other than general terminology there is nothing visually or procedurally the same going from one to another.
I’ve been at it for about 2 months now and I’m still having trouble wrapping my brain around the code like structure.
I went to the beginners’ course at Hexagon in Wixom (Detroit) Mi., but all I learned there was what all the icons do.
I’m chugging along now, churning out programs at increasingly faster speeds, but it’s only with great effort and eye strain (And leaning forward).
I DO sorta like the flexibility of the articulating head (Although I do question the accuracy).
I DO like the resistance to breakage due to the probes being held together by magnets and the TP20 range of motion.
I DO NOT like the heavy use of individual "Hits" instead of the scanning head on the Vast Xt (On my B&S that’s a different attachment)
I DO NOT like that you can’t just qualify all the probes in the rack at once, you have to open different files and qualify the probes used in that file, then open another file and qualify those probes...... and so on. (To better explain, the qualifications seem to be tied to programs, instead of being a machine function)
I DO NOT like the use of “move” or “clearplane” points, in Calypso the probe just moves in and out of the part between features pretty much automatically.
I DO NOT like the Stability of the Demis platform (see all the threads in here about unexplained shutdowns and program crashes).
So here I am, learning a new language, finding a new way to get around, trying to put a new feather in my cap.

For those of you who are multi Lingual, what do I need to know to make my life easier?

What have you found that Demis does better than Calypso?

Fyi,
medical implants (Knees, Hips, and spinal)
Lots of line and surface profiles
.001-.002” profile tolerances are standard
Cad models for everything.
Parents
  • We have a ZEISS Prismo with CALYPSO, and we have two Sheffield Cordax CMM's with PCDMIS. My boss swears that Calypso is more accurate Than PCDMIS. Since our CMM's are not Comparably equipped, fixed head on ZEISS, PH10MQ on Sheffields, scanning on ZEISS, TTP's on Sheffields, Different Machines etc., I can't prove him wrong. I know there are some ZEISS machines out there that can run both software packages. Has anyone run any tests to prove the accuracy between the two software package? I beleive that with comparable CMM's equipped with comparable probing systems the differences between accuracies would be almost identical.



    In my experience, if proper methods and similar hardware are used, there are no significant differences in the results reported by Calypso and Pc-Dmis, much as you will get the same result if you calculate the tangent of 42 degrees on a Casio or a Texas Instruments calculator. Essentially the math is the same regardless of the GUI.

    One of our customers has a Sheffied Cordax that was on MeasureMax until the G000ns killed it. Now they also have a Zeiss with Calypso. I have an Xcel with PH10MQ/TP20/TP200 and a Global Advantage with TesaStarM/SP25, both using Pc-Dmis. I have been able to compare reports from their CMMs to those from ours for many parts over several years. The primary CMM programmer for this customer and I confer often. We agree on all major GD&T interpretations and CMM methodologies. The Zeiss and the Global are both capable of analog scanning and support much longer probes than the Sheffield or the Xcel. But setting aside such hardware differences/limitations, there are essentially no significant differences in our results regardless of which of the 4 hardware and software platforms are being used to inspect and report on the exact same parts. When we first started working together there were some differences. For one particular part we compared every feature, every line of code, explaining to each other what we were doing and why. We reached agreement on our differences and both modified our programs. Since then our results agree within .0002-.0005"/axis which we both agree is about as close as can be achieved with the hardware and environments we have to work with.
Reply
  • We have a ZEISS Prismo with CALYPSO, and we have two Sheffield Cordax CMM's with PCDMIS. My boss swears that Calypso is more accurate Than PCDMIS. Since our CMM's are not Comparably equipped, fixed head on ZEISS, PH10MQ on Sheffields, scanning on ZEISS, TTP's on Sheffields, Different Machines etc., I can't prove him wrong. I know there are some ZEISS machines out there that can run both software packages. Has anyone run any tests to prove the accuracy between the two software package? I beleive that with comparable CMM's equipped with comparable probing systems the differences between accuracies would be almost identical.



    In my experience, if proper methods and similar hardware are used, there are no significant differences in the results reported by Calypso and Pc-Dmis, much as you will get the same result if you calculate the tangent of 42 degrees on a Casio or a Texas Instruments calculator. Essentially the math is the same regardless of the GUI.

    One of our customers has a Sheffied Cordax that was on MeasureMax until the G000ns killed it. Now they also have a Zeiss with Calypso. I have an Xcel with PH10MQ/TP20/TP200 and a Global Advantage with TesaStarM/SP25, both using Pc-Dmis. I have been able to compare reports from their CMMs to those from ours for many parts over several years. The primary CMM programmer for this customer and I confer often. We agree on all major GD&T interpretations and CMM methodologies. The Zeiss and the Global are both capable of analog scanning and support much longer probes than the Sheffield or the Xcel. But setting aside such hardware differences/limitations, there are essentially no significant differences in our results regardless of which of the 4 hardware and software platforms are being used to inspect and report on the exact same parts. When we first started working together there were some differences. For one particular part we compared every feature, every line of code, explaining to each other what we were doing and why. We reached agreement on our differences and both modified our programs. Since then our results agree within .0002-.0005"/axis which we both agree is about as close as can be achieved with the hardware and environments we have to work with.
Children
No Data