I’ve noticed that if I have a prescription with all coatings on all surfaces with the “Use Layer Multiplier And Offsets” box checked and then execute a Monte Carlo (MC) analysis--in this case just on all coating layer thicknesses via TCMU--all the aforementioned boxed on all surfaces are unchecked and, in order to perform a transmission analysis, I have to check on the boxes again (in the MC files). This is rather cumbersome. Is there a way--via a macro command--to turn on layer multipliers? Or can future OS versions leave whatever’s “checked” in a “checked” state when the MC files get created?
TCMU in Monte Carlo analyses
Userlevel 1
Userlevel 7
+3
To try and replicate your problem, I used the Cooke Triplet example file and changed the AR coating on surface 1 to a HEAR1 coating with three layers. The “Use Layer Multiplier and Offsets” option was checked for this coating, and I added TCMU tolerance operands for the 3 layers. Then I ran a MC analysis and saved a few files. They all retained the coating multiplier/offsets check option.
So, I wasn’t able to replicate your problem, at least with one multi-layer coating on a single surface. I’m using OS v23.1.
Regards,
Jeff
Userlevel 1
Thanks, Jeff. I’m using 23.1.02.
I used the “Cooke 40 degree field.zos” file from the Samples/Sequential directory. The prescription has a single-layer AR coating (“AR”) applied to each surface. I turned on the “Use Layer Multiplier and Offsets” for each surface and ran a Monte Carlo with TCMU -0.03 0.03 as the range on each surface. When I opened the Monte Carlo result, “Use Layer Multiplier and Offsets” was turned off. Furthermore, I saved the sample file as “Cooke 40 degree field_TCMU.zos” with “Use Layer Multiplier and Offsets” turned on for all coated surfaces. When I opened the file, however, everything was turned off on every surface.
Hmm.
Userlevel 6
+2
Hi James,
If you use the “Cooke 40 degree field.zmx” file, everything works fine.
You have fallen into the binary ZOS trap. Even though the “new” file format is over 2 years old, there are still a lot of bugs in how it was implemented (and absolutely zero benefit as of now). In 2022, OpticStudio gave the option of choosing ZMX as the default format. I would ALWAYS save files as ZMX and avoid ZOS at all costs until a) it is more fully debugged and b) provides actual useful features.
Userlevel 1
Apparently I’ve fallen into the Sarlacc pit again! I’ll give a .zmx version a go. Thanks for the response.
Userlevel 7
+3
Yes, I saved the file as .zos and re-ran the MC analysis, and sure enough the problem arises. As a general practice I don’t use the .zos format.
Jeff
Userlevel 7
+3
It would be great if Team Ansys-Zemax could just remove this ‘feature’, it does nothing but get in the way of the work you’re trying to do 👿
Reply
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Need more help?
To Chinese users:
Do not provide any information or data that is restricted by applicable law, including by the People’s Republic of China’s Cybersecurity and Data Security Laws ( e.g., Important Data, National Core Data, etc.).
不要提供任何受适用法律，包括中华人民共和国的网络安全和数据安全法限制的信息或数据（如重要数据、国家核心数据等）。