I’m strictly in sequential mode, but I’m not getting rays in the generated STEP file.All surfaces selected, Number of rays = 3Ray pattern = XY, Ray layer = 1, Lens layer = 0Wavelength = mid value,  all fields selected, configuration 1 is selected, tolerance = 1e-6File type = STEP, Parasolid set to V31 (current)System has zero vignetting, but no rays whether the Delete Vignetted box is checked or not. Surfaces as solids box is checked.Is 2026 R1 broken?  Help, anyone? 

Hello everyone, I was working on tolerancing a new design and comparing “old method” TFRN+ TIRR, to the ‘new method’ ISOA/ISOB/ISOC, and it seemed to me that the new method was more ‘pessimistic’ that the old one. Looking in details to compare the methods, I made a very simple system (1 PCX lens, R=50mm, N-BK7, Aperture 10mm) and compared different combinations :ISOC alone TIRR + ISOC ISOB + ISOCLooking at the results I stumbled upon the fact that the contribution in sensitivty of ISOC was not the same depending of the associated operand :ISOC alone : ISOC       2                 -0,50000000         0,00399992         0,00215149         0,50000000         0,00399992         0,00215149TIRR + ISOC : ISOC       2                 -0,50000000         0,00399992         0,00215149         0,50000000         0,00399992         0,00215149ISOB+ISOC : ISOC       2                 -0,45000000         0,00790629         0,00605786         0,45000000         0,00790629         0,00605786(Here I red

Hello,After following the next article: The easiest way to tolerance an off-axis mirror I have been struggling to manage the tolerances in my system since it has 2 different OAPs and as in the example, I have set one of them as the global coordinate reference Apart from that issue, I really don't think my coordinate breaks are working properly to tolerance the OAPs (I only want to check the decentered and tilt tolerances).Lastly, I don't really know why final focus is not hitting the center of the image.Thanks

Is Erin's guide (linked below) still the easiest method?  I've just learned about the new nesting feature, but that's not an option for Pro users.https://community.zemax.com/people-pointers-9/the-easiest-way-to-tolerance-an-off-axis-mirror-4756

I have implemented a simple system composed of:Diode Source with 2deg divergence in x and y; Diffuser implemnted with cylinder volume with a single scaterring surface following a gaussian model with sigma = 0.27 Polar detector to monitor the angular distribution of energy after the diffuser in the range -90, +90 deg; After exporting the detector data using the ”Detector Viewer", I have fitted the data points with the gaussian model described in the Help documentation: BSDF = A*exp(-x**2 / sigma ** 2):The value of the fitted sigma (sigma_i = 23.194) has nothing to do with the specified sigma of the diffuser (sigma = 0.27), which tells me that my interpretation of the scattering model is wrong. Where does the discrepancy come from? 

Hi all, Don’t ask me how I got there… but I found a possibly undocumented (or not well documented let’s say) behavior of RemoveWavelength in the ZOSAPI (SystemData.Wavelengths).In the user interface, if you keep removing wavelengths from the system, eventually you get down to a single wavelength, and this one cannot be suppressed. The enable checkbox grays out.If you use RemoveWavelength enough times with a piece of code like so (I am using ZOSPy):while True: if not oss.SystemData.Wavelengths.RemoveWavelength(1): breakprint(oss.SystemData.Wavelengths.GetWavelength(1).IsActive)print(oss.SystemData.Wavelengths.GetWavelength(1).Wavelength)The prints will be as follows:False0.0And if you use AddWavelength afterwards, this new wavelength will be at position 1 in the Wavelength Data Editor.I am mentioning it because normally the ZOSAPI follows closely what the user interface does and this seems to be an exception. I like the exception because it means we can really clear the editor

I am in non-sequential mode trying to design coupling optics to fiber couple a Lambertian source into a 980um/0.57NA fiber.  After completing my design which consists of two even aspheric lenses, I want to perform a tolerance analysis.  In sequential mode there are many operands available to tolerance lens surfaces. How do I go about tolerancing the lens surface of each aspheric surface in non sequential mode?  What options do I have for lens tolerancing in non sequential mode?

Hi all,First things first, I am still using Zemax 2012, so this may be a limitation. I have a relatively simple setup: input fibre, half ball lens, PCX lens to collimate a beam, the beam passes through a test glass, and is collected onto an output fibre using a PCX lens and half ball lens combination. I optimise the energy throughput from fibre to fibre (using IMAE). The lens and test glass diameters are fixed. The optical beam is allowed to overfill the first PCX lens, but any rays passing through the first lens MUST NOT overfill the test glass or the second PCX lens. For short throw distances (distance from the first PCX lens to the test glass, and from the test glass to the second PCX lens) the Hammer Optimiser works just fine. I have the IMAE merit function to optimise the energy throughput, and I have MXSD merit functions on the test glass and second PCX lens to ensure that the beam is completely within them (no overfill).For short throw distances (like 500mm) the optimisation wor