Which CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) Software is best?

Can we have a discussion/ poll regarding which software people consider the best out there?

I'm looking at potential software and want other peoples thoughts?

Regards

I am partial to Calypso (3.x-4.x) software myself. I have found it to be one of the easiest to learn and use compared to Mitutoyo, PC-DMIS and DEA Tutor. On that I am currently working with PC-DMIS 3.7 and find it cumbersome to manage data (points), I prefer a graphical interface compared to text based data.

Calypso 3.x - 4.x is the best, it's intuitive to a beginner who's familiar with windows. Once you setup your safety cube, 80% of the time you can't crash the probes, unlike one bad 'goto' in a Mitutoyo.

I agree, In my cmm experience, I have used Calypso(Zeiss), Quindos(B&S), Mcosmos(mitutoyo) as well as some basic pc and virtual dimis and by far the capability of the calypso software is top dog.

Mitutoyo COSMOS is not too bad.

It is probably outdated by now, but I always preferred Geo messure 3000 (Mitutoyo). Ease of use, easy to understand. user freindly. I had never used a CMM or numerex and with that software I was writing programs, checking parts and getting cpk's,and all the run charts, histograms, etc. etc..

I have used Zeiss software from UMESS-300 to UMESS-UX, to CALYPSO and I really preferred UMESS-UX to CALYPSO. I disliked CALYPSO so much, that when the company I worked for switched to CALYPSO, I quit and went over to ASIA for 2 years and did consulting work in Singapore, India and the Philippines. I am currently back in the states and using CMM Manager, which is inexpensive, simple and easy to use. I hate CALYPSO. Just read the post that states, Once you setup your safety cube, 80% of the time you can't crash the probes, LOL, hahahaaahaaaa, UNREAL!! I guess if you can live with probe crashes 20% of the time, then CALYPSO is great!

In all fairness to Zeiss Calypso is good software and I would not put the working with clearance planes and crashes at 80-20. Understanding the Clearance path strategy is important and the fact that you can add CMM position points inside of your strategy will help move the probe around without a crash. Having said that, Calypso is a slightly different animal in the way it handles some calculations and can be different than what you are used to.

I agree all around GEOMeasure is one of the most user friendly applications however without a CAD interface it is limited. MCOSMOS has evolved into a nice software and easy to use but the modal aspect of it can get frustrating.

Mark Boucher

When analyzing CMMs, I would suggest that GD&T be considered.

One of the toughest areas to measure with a CMM in GD&T is a positional tolerances of a pattern of maybe 10 holes relative to itself or to datum A. This is called the FRTZF (feature relating tolerance zone framework) and is the bottom section of the composite feature control frame. Most, if not all, software cannot measure inside a pattern but easily measure the positional tolerance of the pattern relative to A, B and C datums. One would have to zero up on 1 hole and then measure the other holes to the single hole which isn't quite right.

Just some thought.

mboucher said:

In all fairness to Zeiss Calypso is good software and I would not put the working with clearance planes and crashes at 80-20. Understanding the Clearance path strategy is important and the fact that you can add CMM position points inside of your strategy will help move the probe around without a crash. Having said that, Calypso is a slightly different animal in the way it handles some calculations and can be different than what you are used to.

I agree all around GEOMeasure is one of the most user friendly applications however without a CAD interface it is limited. MCOSMOS has evolved into a nice software and easy to use but the modal aspect of it can get frustrating.

Mark Boucher

Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make with 80/20 is 80% of the time you don't even need to seriously consider how the CMM will approach the part and how the software is going to move around the part in Calypso. Something that was always a concern when I used to use Geomeasure. Define your cube, and the vast majority of the time you'll never have a crash, unlike in Geomeasure where your program could easily crash going from feature A to feature B if you don't manually add in the points for it to rapid to between them.

Let's say I have a program with 100 holes, with Geomeasure if I only cared about holes 17 and 33 I'd need to run the whole thing (from when I used to use it a bit, possibly this isn't the case anymore?) while with Calypso I can only pull the few dimensions I want, the software will determine it's own path to check the Datums then those features and 80% of the time it will do a fine job. There are 20% of the time you'll need to manually change a few settings (switch from CP +Z to CP -Y or manually move in with points).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I can see how someone who likes UMess / Geomeasure / PCDMIS can defend their software of choice.