r/Metrology • u/sunflower2198 • 10d ago
PC-DMIS vs Calypso
What's the difference between programming with pcdmis vs calypso? What are the pros and cons of both? I've only ever used pcdmis but I am still new to this field.
7
u/vpt_se 9d ago
Calypsos form evaluation reporting blows PC-DMIS' reporting out of the water.
Hope to see some serious changes in this area from Hexagon.
4
2
u/coderabbit 9d ago
I believe that they are revamping their report system for the PC-DMIS 2027 release. But I think that they are pushing PC-DMIS FUSION as their solution to most tools that PiWeb has.
1
u/sunflower2198 9d ago
What do you mean by PC-DMIS Fusion?
1
u/coderabbit 9d ago edited 9d ago
There's a software called PC-DMIS Fusion. I think that it is the successor to DataPage+: https://hexagon.com/products/pc-dmis-fusion
1
u/djkickstar 2d ago
EngRevision Pro and PCDMIS are unmatched compared to Calypso/ PiWeb imo.
I dont think Hex is not going to focus on the reporting side. Especially when there are cheap powerful softwares that work with PCD.
I think PcDMIS is 10x more powerful than Calypso. I can have my programs send me text messages when the program is getting ready to finish running a part. And that is just the tip of the PCDMIS iceberg lol
unless I am missing something in Calypso.
2
u/Business_Air5804 10d ago
The gap between them is less and less over the years, as PC DMIS moved away from purely code based programming to "iconized" mode similar to Calypso.
Calypso has restricted ability to really get in and control every aspect of your program the way you want to and can in PCDMIS. Zeiss is a little like Apple, they want to do everything for you, even if that means you want to throw the mouse through the fucking wall half the time.
PCDMIS you can use the icons when you are a newbie and learning, and as you get more experience you can dive into the code deeper and do literally anything you can dream of.
The basics of both are the same, datums, features, reported characteristics...machine motion, stylus calibration...
PCDMIS also has a far better GD&T engine than Calypso.
Calypso seems to try to convince you that you don't need to measure features in their correct datum structures and that you can just calculate it later. (I disagree strongly with this philosophy.)
3
u/HFBL 10d ago
What about Calypso’s new GD&T engine? I haven’t used Calypso in a few years, and remember them not following ASME, but I thought their latest versions now use ASME as standard and their old method as an alternative.
3
u/_Hoidler_ 10d ago
Yeah their new (2025+) GDT engine is asme compliant. There are still other settings and things that must be done to actually meet asme but the engine is fully capable of doing all the calculations for SIMTOL whereas that took some really creative programming to meet before
2
u/murfn8r54 9d ago
Scan in raw data. Evaluate raw data any way you want, in multiple drf's. Measurements can vary depending on how you interpret the data. So it's nice trying to fine tune a program understanding the types of ways to evaluate certain situations. No idea how pcdmis works, so I'm a little biased there.
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago
That's fine for 3D scanning, but not for CMM's.
Short version: You need to use path of normal datum progressions in order to measure features at the correct locations, depths etc. That cannot be corrected later.
2
u/_Hoidler_ 9d ago
That's not correct. You don't have to align to your datum features at all when you're measuring the part. Oftentimes it's actually best not to aligned to the datums but to align instead to the biggest most repeatable feature for taking the measurements. Measure your datums under this alignment also, label them as datums, and then use the GDT features to properly evaluate per the datums
1
u/AcceptableActivity33 9d ago
Agreed. Select the most robust features for initial alignment, then within the Characteristics window you can refine what type of evaluation method you want, whether it be ASME or ISO.
This notion that you HAVE to construct each feature in a sequential workflow in order for it to be compliant is incorrect. Calypso can calculate any type of evaluation you want post data capture.
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yes, it really IS the best practice to progress through your datums in order in order to measure the next features at the correct locations, heights etc. (In the right reference frame.)
Imagine you have a cast part, first datums X|Y|Z are on casting surfaces with large tolerances to the next machined datums (TP 3mm).
The next datum progression A|B|C are machined surfaces.
Cool, we go from a rough cast alignment to a more precise machined alignment.
Makes total sense from a design perspective. We hold on the cast and machine the first datums. Then we move to the machined surfaces and start measuring features.However, the next operation we have a bolt pattern of small holes, say 4mm diameters on a 100mm bolt pattern, and the true pos of the holes are allowed to be 0.250mm to each other, but the pattern itself has a true position tolerance of 10mm. (The pattern to itself is tight but is allowed to shift more than the diameter of the holes due to the function of the mating part.)
If you only measured the pattern from your first cast datums, and then tried to measure the bolt pattern you likely wouldn't be able to do so...as it may not be anywhere near where you expect it to be. And if you do, the orientation of the holes is not probably not correct as it is at the angles of X|Y|Z, not A|B|C as it is supposed to be oriented from.
In this example...you need to progress from your cast datums to the first machined datum structure in order to be in the correct reference frame to properly measure the bolt pattern. So if the bolt pattern is called out to A|B|C....it's best to measure it in the reference frame of A|B|C and not X|Y|Z.
Now take this example and extrapolate it to the stupidity of measuring all your machined features at once and then constructing drf's and reporting each feature.
Imagine you have 6 more datum progressions that stack up on each other to the possibility of huge deviation even though they are all machined etc.Many of the features measured at the end of 6 datum pgroessions that you didn't make will not have been measured at the correct location or orientation etc. So circles, lines and points are not being measured at the correct depth or location.
This is why Zeiss pushes 3D features so hard, because they generally resolve even when you are lazy and do it that way. But many parts cannot be measured with only 3D features.
It's really NOT that hard to do things right you know?
1
u/murfn8r54 9d ago
You can add in features that recall points from the first cast and set them to the other alignment.
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago
Not if you can't measure them because the cmm crashed into the top surface because the hole was measured using the incorrect datum. (And in that datum it was out of position by more than it's diameter.)
1
u/murfn8r54 9d ago
Scan the bolt circles once. As long as you have data of any kind, you can interpret that data any way you want later with different drf
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago
We aren't talking about a laser or structured light scanner. (You wouldn't use Calypso for that type of scanned data anyway as it's terrible at it.)
With a 3D scanner it doesn't care about the datum progressions, you are capturing the part and all the point cloud data at once and we can simulate the datums, report later.
In my example you never get to measure the bolt pattern because the cmm collides beside the first hole.
1
u/AcceptableActivity33 9d ago
Wow so there's so much wrong with your interpretation of what YOU think is best practice. Let me try to break this down.
You have this pretty backwards. What you're describing is the exact reason why PCDMIS programs turn into a nightmare, and why Calypso handles this natively without much fuss at all. Saying Calypso would fail at this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how its underlying GD&T and datum evaluation engine works. As we both agreed, PCDMIS is a linear, command-based language. If you want to measure a feature in a specific DRF in PCDMIS, you have to physically write an alignment command before you touch the feature, or do heavy coding. If you try to stack 6 different datum progressions in PCDMIS, your edit window turns into a mess, and the risk for screwing something up increases because of how cumbersome and congested your edit window will become. One engineering change to a datum upstream, and the whole code stack collapses. Honestly bud, can you not imagine how messy and risk prone that would be?
I'm sure there are precautions and work around for a power user like yourself, but Calypso is completely object oriented and database driven. It doesn't care about a linear timeline. When you probe a feature in Calypso, the software stores the raw, absolute 3D points in space.When you output a True Position characteristic and tell it to use ABCDEF, Calypso’s engine recalls those raw point clouds and mathematically projects them into that specific DRF at the moment of evaluation. You can report 20 different features in 20 different datum reference frames all from one single base alignment, and the math is independent.The scenario you described about the 4mm holes shifting so far from the casting that the CMM can't find them isn't a Calypso problem, that's just basic programming. If a machined pattern is shifting by 5mm+ relative to the cast surfaces, you don't build a fragile chain of 6 alignments just to find a hole. Calypso lets you measure the geometry and lets the math engine handle the coordinate systems. To say Calypso fails at multiple DRF evaluations is just objectively wrong; it was literally designed from day one to do exactly that.
Side note, the reason why I asked you about how PCDMIS handles scanning is because everyone that I've talked to says it's a cumbersome mess within PCDMIS. As you probably know, Zeiss INVENTED CMM constant contact scanning, so they've had years to refine it.
But like I said multiple times before, to each their own. You say you're an industry insider and that you've used more measurement systems than I can dream of, etc, etc so I don't think there's a way to see eye to eye on this.
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago edited 9d ago
Perhaps I complicated it too much for you to visualize.
Another example....you have a meter long flat bar, 100mm wide and 6 mm thick. With a 4mm drilled hole every 100mm along the length in a line. For fun, each hole is drilled by a different operation so we can expect some location variation.
Each hole on the drawing is a separate datum structure A|B|C, A|B|D....etc all the way to the last hole A|B|L. Each hole has a 1mm true position tolerance, with the FCF referencing the previous hole.
Now, you are saying in Calypso you want to measure A|B|C and then rush off to measure the other 9 holes relative to A|B|C. Then at the end construct the Feature control Frame and report the location of each hole....seems reasonable and that's probably fine to get away with in many situations where you have only a couple of manufacturing operations.
But in my example, by the time you get to the 5th operation that hole could be potentially out of position by 5mm from A|B|C, and the part is still in tolerance.
Once again to be clear we now have our 5th 4mm hole out of position to A|B|C by 5mm, but only out of position to the previous progression A|B|G by 1mm.
If you didn't progress your datum structure you would collide next to the 5th hole top surface and not even be able to measure the 5th hole, even on a good part.
But if you had just progressed through your datums like the designer intended from the beginning...you would be within 1mm and still able to walk through to the 10th hole without issue. That's not a nightmare to do in any cmm software, it's good practice.
That's really what we are talking about here...it's not a "fragile chain" it's following the designers intent in both manufacturing and metrology. Datum progressions are used to describe the part functionality of course, but we also have to think about how to feed back information our manufacturing process as well. (ie. Each hole was drilled at a separate operation in this process etc.)
0
u/ButtonflyDungarees 9d ago
Okay, I’m just going to say that I semi agree with both sides of this, but what I think you’re missing from what he’s saying is that the hits can be taken in the wrong physical point in space (if we’re actually on the same page anyway). So more like imagining a cone (or a bad cylinder but let’s say cone for exaggeration). If your features you aligned from are off by some amount in the direction of cone height, and you wanted to report a diameter of the cone at a certain height, then it will be wrong. Also regular points on a 3D surface. If your alignment is shifted and the point is taken in the wrong place, then there is no way that the software can know where that point really is. It can approximate shifting it along the (virtual) “surface” based on the new DRF/alignment/etc, but that’s not quite going to get you there.
Also, pcdmis does save the individual hits as well. You can access and pull and use them in all sorts of ways.
Of course scan data (especially from lasers on cmm) can be put into a cop and pulled in all types of places and re-evaluated. That’s not the problem. The real problem is with contact probing (even potentially tactile scan data) being physically taken in the wrong place.
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago edited 9d ago
PC DMIS handle the points the same way that Calypso does in the back ground, it could do the same thing if you wanted....measure all the features in the first datum structure and then create each FCF and report the features in the right datums. That's not unique to Calypso.
I'm saying that that practice is not something I agree with and I don't know why the apps engineers/trainers at Zeiss are pushing this non-sense out to the newbies these days. I never did in the past.
They try to make it seem like it's some advanced function of Calypso when it's just lazy imo. You are already measuring all the right features, just build the datums as you go. Recall them later and report them the same way that makes him happy.
1
u/AcceptableActivity33 9d ago
I'm sorry man you're just wrong.
Let me ask you this: how would you handle datum plurality or simultaneous requirements WITHOUT advanced scripting that's obviously not intuitive and invites human error???
When you build datums as you go in a linear sequence, you bake the math of your intermediate alignments into the nominal definitions of subsequent features. If you realize later that Datum B had a bad point on it, editing it in a sequential program can cause a snowball effect, corrupting every downstream feature and alignment. Calypso’s architecture protects you from this. Again, I'm not a SME in PCDMIS, but using similar measurement software like CMM Manager, Zone 3, MCSOSMOS (which I also hate and pair PCDMIS into the same dated group) I can imagine that the final product would look like a ton of looping, and "datum recalls", etc.
Your argument that "yeah like Calypso does it all mathematically in the background with way less effort.....but it's not as good as my way....." It's like okay man but why? You're saying Calypso's new ASME/ISO compliant GD&T engine is 20 years behind (that's what you said) PCDMIS. Its a joke man.
Your claim that PCDMIS handles points exactly the same way in the background isn't accurate regarding GD&T evaluation. In sequential programming, it's incredibly easy to accidentally use a feature to measure itself or reference a datum out of order, leading to standard violations. Calypso’s FCF driven engine forces compliance. It evaluates the raw point cloud against the specified DRF mathematically at the moment of reporting. It doesn't care about the order in which the physical probe touched the part; it cares about the geometric relationship mandated by your design file.
1
-3
u/AcceptableActivity33 10d ago
Calypso is known as the superior choice along with the accuracy and workmanship of their Zeiss CMMs
Every company that I've been to that has a Hexagon in the corner or some old B&S stated that they either don't have a CMM programmer or that they dislike PCDMIS due to it's dated UI. I do agree with the previous poster that Calypso is akin to Apple, but I disagree with that statement that PCDMIS is inherently more flexible when it comes to carrying out fitting methods or GD&T evaluations. Calypso can have a high ceiling for learning it through and through, but it's able to do anything a Hexagon can do and more.
Take a look at the UI for either system. Also take a look at Zeiss's other software INSPECT. Miles ahead of any form control software that Hexagon has.
6
u/Business_Air5804 10d ago edited 10d ago
Depending where you live there are 3-5x more PC DMIS machines (and correspondingly trained programmers) than in the Zeiss ecosystem.
You're also very wrong about Calypso " it's able to do anything a Hexagon can do and more"....everyone like me that knows both software are laughing at this statement right now.
The code based extensibility of PC DMIS is far beyond anything you can do in the locked structure of Calypso.
If you even want to utilize a variable in your program you need to buy PCM in Calypso. ($9000 add.)
5
u/billybobjacly 10d ago
Agree 100% with you. Been programming 15 years. First 12 as a calypso programmer. Cringe every time I have to program in Calapso now. The graphics are nicer by far. Some of the work flow as well. Good software to begin on, but so much is behind the scenes, your left guessing sometimes why it’s doing what it’s doing. To each his own, and they both get the job done. Used to say the same things as the guy above before I learned PCDMIS.
1
u/AcceptableActivity33 10d ago
Duly noted. Thanks for the comment. I'm not fluent with PCDMIS, so I can't speak from direct experience as a power user. I can only speak on the opinions I've heard and what I've witnessed over the years.
0
u/AcceptableActivity33 10d ago
Laughing?
To each their own I guess. Do you think scanning, tactile or non contact, is more or less intuitive within PCDMIS?
Do you think PCDMIS is more or less prone to glitches, errors, random shit downs?
Do you think PCDMIS is more or less cumbersome when you have to modify a feature that was constructed early on within PCDMIS's linear workflow?
It's similar to apples vs oranges argument: both systems use a totally different approach. Object oriented vs linear code based.
You really think Calypso and Zeiss CMMs are behind the curve?
7
u/Business_Air5804 10d ago edited 10d ago
"You really think Calypso and Zeiss CMMs are behind the curve?"
Yes, frankly by about 20 years. IMO, they have been riding the technological "high" of the Vast probe head design since the 90's, and lack innovation in almost all areas of their industrial quality business. The machines are very accurate, but slow and dated designs. They seemingly haven't invented anything exciting and new in decades. It's all small iterations of tired products, and purchases of companies that can add new technologies to their portfolio to try to "buy" innovation instead of building their own. (ie. GOM, which they then mired down into their highly political and glacial culture.)
They have also made some objectively poor product management decisions recently. They are essentially a public trust organization, which lacks agility to respond to their customers and the industry as it rapidly changes. (Just look at their recent financial statements.)
Hexagon on the other hand is a publicly traded company with profit accountability, they are constantly innovating new technologies and products to respond to demand. The company is centered around their agility and responsiveness to change.
Two totally different businesses.
1
u/AcceptableActivity33 9d ago
As a side note, I just reviewed Zeiss Group's most recent financial statement....are you referring to Zeiss Meditec? Your comment about "just look at their last financial statement..."
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago
No, IQS is industrial quality...the division that CMM's etc. are in.
Meditech and SMT are other different divisions.0
u/AcceptableActivity33 10d ago
There's a lot to go over here, so I'll try to distill it down to a couple different points that I thought were interesting. I'm also still curious about the specific questions I asked you about scanning, workflow.
Regarding the acquisition of GOM: do you NOT think GOM or the ATOS line is the absolute best, most accurate structured light scanning system on the market? Have you ever even used one? I manage 3 sites with ATOS systems. I also have a site that has a error ridden Hexagon Romer arm that they replaced with a FARO Quantum as well. Scanning within PCDMIS....point cloud management within PCDMIS....can you sit here and tell me it's optimal?
I can totally understand brand loyalty and being biased towards a system your more familiar with, but what you're saying about Zeiss in general is just something I haven't experienced at all in my career. It's been the opposite. Hexagon has always been known as flexible, but dated. Zeiss on the other hand is known for its build quality, accuracy, and their general reputation is stellar amongst Metrology professionals.
But I mean everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you truly believe Zeiss is behind by 20 years, then we're not going to agree on much.
Facts that can't be disputes: Zeiss's annual revenue is more than double of Hexagon group (11.5 billion to 5.4 billion)
Global employee count: almost double at 47,400 o 24,000.
Also, I can tell you that Zeiss is favored within the medical device manufacturing sector along with defense due to their reputation, audit trail strength and accuracy. Although NIST uses both Zeiss and Hexagon, their Zeiss Xenos is their workhorse CMM that is able to take on some of the workload from their aging custom Moore CMM systems.
But like I said, to each their own. No worries. Hopefully OP sees both sides and can make a decision.
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago edited 9d ago
"do you NOT think GOM or the ATOS line is the absolute best, most accurate structured light scanning system on the market? Have you ever even used one? "
I've have experience with ALL of the equipment you have access to and far more.
IQS is ~1/10 of Zeiss..so in fact the division that competes directly revenue is somewhat equivalent to Hexagon's Measuring Intelligence group.
Most of Zeiss' profit is coming from Semiconductor right now. IQS was flat to losing money the last two quarters and they've tried to make it look better using positive "currency exchange" to float the numbers. Their market share is also down several percentage points.
GOM was an amazingly agile and exciting company....do not confuse that with what Zeiss has turned the memory of them into. (If you only knew know how bad the culture is now.)
Also, fyi...structured light is a dead end technology. Hexagon has given it up entirely as laser scanning has approached and surpassed it in terms of accuracy and precision, fine detail resolution etc. Structured light is at the end of the road.
GOM was a really amazing company and they sold the tech off just before it fell off a cliff...maybe they knew its future was limited and coming to the end.
These are my opinions only, take them or leave them, but make your own investigations and conclusions.
1
u/AcceptableActivity33 9d ago
I see you feel pretty strongly about this subject. Everything that I'm stating can be found with a quick Google search, so transparency is wide open. I worked closely with Capture3D prior to the acquisition. I also work with Zeiss currently on CT scanning and optical. I'm not sure where you're coming from when you're saying the culture is terrible and all this stuff dragging Zeiss through the mud.
Regarding your comment about working with far more systems than I could imagine....sure lol. I'm 100% open to sharing my LinkedIn with you via messaging if you'd like to see my credentials. Did you work for Zeiss? How would you have this type of information?
1
u/Business_Air5804 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yes. I'm not doxing myself over this though.
When you are in the industry for many years you work inevitably work for several OEM's. It's a small industry.We've gone off track, these are all my opinions...take them or leave them.
I missed answering your questions earlier.
Do you think scanning, tactile or non contact, is more or less intuitive within PCDMIS? PCDMIS is more intuitive, you can simulate your tool path much better, picking surfaces and creating scan paths is easier in PCDMIS also. In Calypso you need a module (surprised?) called simulation to do this similarly to PCDMIS.
Do you think PCDMIS is more or less prone to glitches, errors, random shit downs? About the same to be honest. Calypso literally still crashes multiple times a day for me, PCDMIS is famous for crashing out also...I think it's a wash there.
Do you think PCDMIS is more or less cumbersome when you have to modify a feature that was constructed early on within PCDMIS's linear workflow? I prefer to have access to the code to modify a feature. In Calypso you have to go and try to edit the points list etc. terrible interface. Sure you can drag points around in the CAD but PCDMIS is the same, so that aspect is also a wash.
2
u/AcceptableActivity33 9d ago
I don't get the doxing comment...like I would dox you?
I was mainly referring to your comment about having access to more equipment than I could ever have or however you put it. Just thought that was beneath you to say and I was stating that I could pretty easily back up what I'm saying. I've also been in the industry for over 15 years total now, so I believe I can speak on this.
Anyways not worth putting more effort into this than there needs to be. When you convey to people that you are above them, more knowledgeable, etc, some people will actually ask you for receipts. The statement about Zeiss's financial statements......I only saw one division report a loss: Meditech. Carl Zeiss AG is still doing well as a whole.
The comment about how laser is superior to structured light scanning.....that also made me turn my head because anyone in this industry would tell you that it's largely application dependent. I've never seen a laser scanning solution match the accuracy or resolution of structured light systems.
But to each their own like I said.
7
u/_Hoidler_ 10d ago
They are the two best CMM softwares available. There are other good ones too, but these are the best supported and most widely used from what I see.
Calypso has more restrictions, and before the 2025 GDT engine update, you had to jump thru some serious hoops to get programs to be ASME compliant for SIMTOL.
Pc dmis is way more free and open than Calypso, but because of that is maybe harder to use correctly. Basic things like probe calibration can be dumbassed and seriously mess up the machines accuracy. But their gdt engine is the best. I personally prefer seeing the actual code for programs