Geomagic Control X Problems

Discuss all Geomagic related issues here.
Post Reply
Dhaskojr
I have made <0 posts
I have made <0 posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:09 pm
Full Name: Douglas Hasko Jr
Company Details: Foam Molding Injection Molding
Company Position Title: 3D Scanning Technician
Country: USA
Linkedin Profile: Yes

Geomagic Control X Problems

Post by Dhaskojr » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:32 pm

Hello All,

I work for a small injection molding company and we recently purchased a Creaform Handheld Scanner, HandySCAN 700, and Geomagic Control X to do first article inspections on parts we mold. I am doing the majority of this work and have noticed that once a scan is uploaded into Control X, and "Initial Fit" then "Best Fit" onto the CAD model, the results are not always what I expect. I recently had parts that were inspected in another fashion, and no less than 85% of the dimensions passed. Once I uploaded the file into Control X and set up the inspection dimensions/tolerances, only 60% of them passed. I have noticed this with many parts we have tried to inspect with Control X and I would say that a 60% pass rate is common. I have manually measured many dimensions to be correct on our parts that are not correct once the scan is uploaded to Control X. I have called technical support and the results have improved slightly, but still a 60% pass rate is not good. Has anyone else had issues like this with Control X? And if so, how did you fix them?

Thanks in advance!

mls
I have made 30-40 posts
I have made 30-40 posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:55 pm
Full Name: Paul Casson
Company Details: multipass 3d laser scans ltd
Company Position Title: Managing Director
Country: UK
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Location: Cumbria. UK.
Contact:

Re: Geomagic Control X Problems

Post by mls » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Thinking around it, you may not be using the ideal software in this case. Perhaps you can talk to Geomagic about a trial version of Qualify, which is the Geomagic product specifically aimed at the workflow you have described. My understanding is that Design X is a software intended for creating (reverse engineering) CAD models, based on scans of existing parts - not the same as your workflow.
No doubt Design X is capable of handling the task in some way, but inspection is not the primary intention behind the software`s development. Qualify on the other hand is intended exactly for your workflow you describe.

3DSean
I have made 10-20 posts
I have made 10-20 posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:26 pm
Full Name: Sean Parker
Company Details: 3D Systems Geomagic
Company Position Title: Regional Manager - US West Coast
Country: United States
Linkedin Profile: Yes
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: Geomagic Control X Problems

Post by 3DSean » Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:08 pm

Actually, mls, Qualify was replaced by Control X back in ~2016 as Geomagic's only inspection/metrology software. Previously, we had sold Geomagic Control (formerly Geomagic Qualify) and Geomagic Verify (formerly Rapidform XOV) side by side where Control was intended for industrial users needing scripting and more automation and Verify was our FAI tool. In 2016 we combined the two programs into Control X, essentially leveraging Verify's math with Control/Qualify's superior UI.

The issues you're experiencing are with 2D/3D Dimensions and GD&T callouts, right? Those actually should be unaffected by the alignment. Operations like the 2D/3D Compare, Simulated CMM and Comparison Point tools will change their value with different alignment calculations. Geomagic obviously calculates Scan to CAD pairing differently than other inspection software and that's likely to be the reason you're seeing a difference in results. The default method of pairing scan points with a CAD face in CX is a Gaussian geometry best fit of all points near the CAD geometry within a certain threshold. Have you opened up the Pairing Manager and taken a look at what points/mesh triangles are associated with the CAD geometry in question, and possibly edited the pairing map by pulling paired points away from edges or removing statistical outliers?

Another way to test if pairing is to blame is to manually select points/polygons and fit reference geometry to them, then manually pair that ref geo with the CAD features in the Pairing Manager to see how the calculated value differs. I'm happy to explain this process in more detail if you'd like. [email protected]

Post Reply

Return to “Geomagic”