Any thoughts to the above?Imagine I’m creating some linear geometry, like a trough concentrator. I’d like to be able to optimize some of the geometry as defined in the x-z plane, but this geometry is just extruded some length along y.For a simple parabolic concentrator, the biconic surface works well, since one can define the y-radius to be 0 (infinite) and the x-conic to be -1. Set the rectangular flag and the extrusion length is defined by the max and min y-apertures. CPC rectangular is obviously intended for this purpose, but it requires a non-zero aperture so, as far as I can tell, one cannot generate “closed bottom” troughs...But what if the trough profile is something more complex? The help file for the extruded object suggests the extrusion can only be along the z axis, but maybe that is in the local coordinate system, and this limitation can be overcome by a rotation of the object? Then how to define the profile? The help file for the extruded object points to the user defined

Hello again friends from the Zemax community, I’m trying to optimize an optical system in where I have an input spherical wavefront (a single point) and the output is another spherical wavefront with a changed radius of curvature.  Since my image is not real at the target output plane, how could I use zemax merit function definitions to optimize such a system? Would optimizing for the spot size/wavefront error at the “virtual” image point in image space be a suitable solution here? Or is there any other approach that I could follow? Thanks a lot for your feedback and comments

Dear Zemax Team, I shortly designed a high numerical aperture system (NA>0.9) and did a tolerancing. The system is a rotational symmetric objective with spherical surfaces only. Useably quite simple for a ray tracer. Subsequently, I performed a MonteCarlo tolerancing by slightly shifting lenses and surfaces and by modifying surface thicknesses by a bit. Almost every system that is created in the MC analysis has a wavefront deformation as follows. It shows a large discontinuity at the edge of the pupil:  Obviously, this WFRMS is not real and hampers an evaluation of the system. If the entrance pupil radius of this tolerated system is slightly reduced (less than 1%), the resulting wavefront looks as follows. The discontinuity disappears since it originated at the edge of the pupil: Ray aiming will not help since the stop is in front of the objective. I tried it nevertheless, it doesn’t change anything.I am estonished since the displacement of surfaces is in the order of 1 µm, I didnt

One year ago, ​@Xianglei wrote a topic (thanks a lot!) about:Since its been quite painful to generate such plots with ZPL (thanks to ​@Erin.Elliott, we might get a fix in 2025 🤞):I’ve been using the ZOS-API option more and more to create animations. It is more stable, but currently lacks a couple of options. Since we’re approaching the Christmas period 🎅, this is my wish list to improve the ZOS-API Layout Exports feature (in order of importance):As far as I understand, we cannot specify the file type of the export. I’ve tried to use multiple extensions in OutputFileName (.JPG, .PNG, ...etc.) but the file size remains the same. Based on the file size, which is rather small (for a given image size), I’m assuming the export is made in .JPG regardless of the extension specified. Can the file type be added to the ZOS-API? Could we get a vector graphics file type? Although there’s a property RaysLineThickness, for me, it doesn’t seem to have an effect. If someone is anyway going to look at

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?