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.
We used to have a Zeiss Dual Beam that ran both Calypso and PC-DMIS. But it was still not quite apples to apples. As an example, calibration std. dev. with PC-DMIS was approx. .0001" and with Calypso was approx. .00002" with the same probe configuration. You have to remember that there is no filtering with PC-DMIS but there is filtering that is always turned on with Calypso even if you do not select any filters. As far as measuring goes, PC-DMIS always had an edge over Calypso on the same machine. I attribute it to the fact that you can more precisely position hits and vectors for features and hit position is a bit more clunky and you cannot control vectors in Calypso.
We also have a Global with TP200 and SP600 and a Prismo Vast. Both comparable in size. These two machines measure parts with extremely comparable results. The Global does not do quite as good for form measurements especially with the TP200 head.
We used to have a Zeiss Dual Beam that ran both Calypso and PC-DMIS. But it was still not quite apples to apples. As an example, calibration std. dev. with PC-DMIS was approx. .0001" and with Calypso was approx. .00002" with the same probe configuration. You have to remember that there is no filtering with PC-DMIS but there is filtering that is always turned on with Calypso even if you do not select any filters. As far as measuring goes, PC-DMIS always had an edge over Calypso on the same machine. I attribute it to the fact that you can more precisely position hits and vectors for features and hit position is a bit more clunky and you cannot control vectors in Calypso.
We also have a Global with TP200 and SP600 and a Prismo Vast. Both comparable in size. These two machines measure parts with extremely comparable results. The Global does not do quite as good for form measurements especially with the TP200 head.