hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 225 subscribers
  • Views 588 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

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

RobertoFlores
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.
  • 3) Reporting:
    Both have extensive report-customization options, and both are cumbersome. PC-DMIS does have an edge with more graphical reporting available with fewer clicks.

    The reports we get from our in-house Calypso lab are WAY better than the MSPaint lookalike PC-DMIS spits out... and they are using the default reports available in Calypso.
  • Of all the things stated in this thread no one has mentioned the fact that in PCD you can see and edit the code. It is the biggest drawback to Calypso that I can't assign a variable to do some of the math and then construct a feature using the variables.
    The argument can be made that that this is the biggest drawback to pcdmis - always having to fiddle around with the code. Slight smile

    I've used both extensively, and switched from Calypso to pc-dmis with my last job change. Fortunately, I had plenty of code based CMM language experience, so the change was not too difficult. My advice to the OP is, try to completely forget how things worked in calypso. As you pointed out, they could not be more different in philosophy/methodology (same can be said for any CMM software when compared to calypso).
  • ...they could not be more different in philosophy/methodology (same can be said for any CMM software when compared to calypso).

    That's probably the best summary. PC-DMIS, like most metrology software, is rooted from machines that were designed to measure geometry from discrete points. Zeiss originally developed their machines to measure the form of the lenses they manufactured. Basically, PC-DMIS is CMM software that can also be used for form measurement, while Calypso is form machine software that can also be a CMM. They are trying to do the same thing, but come from two completely mindsets.

    Not making comparison to how you did things in Calyspo is probably the way to go while trying to learn PC-DMIS.
  • 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 accuracys would be almost identical.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Y'all need to know or remember that Pc Dmis is a software application that runs complete in its entirety.

    Collapso software does not & is a 'modular' software comprising a collection of bundles of software that talk to each other in use.... seamlessly...ha ha.

    Hence the differences quoted in use. Access to the code in Pc Dmis cannot be equalled or beaten.

    The ‘enhancements’ in Collapso (fancier reporting etc) are just that as it is lacking where it counts.

    Changing to Collapso is a bit like ‘upgrading’ Angelina Jolie with arthritis.

    You pays yer money you make yer choice.
  • ^Not sure where this is coming from, because calypso is a VERY good software package. Truly innovative and well thought out. It's just different. So different that with 20 years experience and having worked with over a dozen cmm languages, I had trouble learning it. Once I finally got the concepts, I really liked it for the most part.
  • Thank you all for your responces, i have read them all and am trying to digest what i can.
    I WAS able to create a "Probe Qual" program, which grabs all my probes and qualifys them in one shot (By the way my bosses think that's the cats ***).
    I have lots more questions, but will ask them in new threads.

    Thank you all
    RF
  • Y'all need to know or remember that Pc Dmis is a software application that runs complete in its entirety.

    Collapso software does not & is a 'modular' software comprising a collection of bundles of software that talk to each other in use.... seamlessly...ha ha.

    Hence the differences quoted in use. Access to the code in Pc Dmis cannot be equalled or beaten.

    The ‘enhancements’ in Collapso (fancier reporting etc) are just that as it is lacking where it counts.

    Changing to Collapso is a bit like ‘upgrading’ Angelina Jolie with arthritis.

    You pays yer money you make yer choice.

    +1 and ROFL
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement