You need to be careful about using on-machine probing for final part inspection. If your axes are not aligned orthogonally, for example, you could machine your parts out-of-square and wouldn't know by probing. If you've had your your machine calibrated (e.g.
with this stuff) and are comfortable with the scale of the error relative to your tolerances then it may work.
But if you don't want to go to a full CMM system then a
flexible gauging system may fit the bill.
You are telling me several things of note here, and thank you.
Now, hang on, and let's look at this from a practical perspective:
Obviously, the machine is reasonably close. I machine parts on it daily, and it hits dimension as good as I tell it to, up to the limits of my ability to inspect. Very nice. On all three machines, actually.
Now, I realize a CMM is a high-precision instrument, however, if we only want to measure to .0002" or .0005" ... well, that would be more than just good.
In fact, I would believe that nearly everyone would want that capability.
So far as the part being true on axis... I would consider that completely unimportant.
What the objective is is to gather the data points, export them, transform them into a CAD model...
And then play with them in the software to modify and generate tool-pathing.
Everyone with a Renishaw Equipped machine would love to have this capability.
You'd be buried in orders.
Imagine... toss a part on the table. Tell the machine to probe it within an envelope with the rough dimensions, with defined data point steps..
Push the go button and tell the machine good-night.
The technology is already there.
Notice of course I do use my probe this way manually now. Dummy CMM.
It doesn't matter how I throw the part on the table. And no need to clamp it so long as the probe won't move it.
I take my contact points and throw them into my CAD and connect the dots.
Walla. CAD model.
But, beyond simple forms.. this becomes very time consuming.
However, once I have things like bore centers and bolt patterns... rough pocket points..I can fake it from there.
You do understand where I am going, correct?
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to address this, and I would love to hear any more you may have to add to this.
Mark