Stop sending every part to the CMM.

That is not an argument against measurement discipline. It is an argument for using the right inspection platform.

For years, many quality teams have treated the conventional CMM as the automatic answer for dimensional inspection. That made sense when the choice was mainly tactile measurement or manual alternatives. But it is not the right comparison anymore.

A modern OGP multisensor system is not simply an optical machine. It can combine optical measurement, laser measurement and tactile probing within one platform. That changes the decision completely.

The question is no longer: Should we use a CMM or an optical system?

The better question is: Why use a tactile-only route when the part could be measured with optics, laser and touch probing in one inspection strategy?

If the part fits the system, the features are accessible and the method can be proven, OGP multisensor measurement is often the stronger starting point.

CMM vs OGP multisensor measurement: quick reference

The more useful comparison is not CMM versus optical measurement. It is conventional tactile-first inspection versus a multisensor platform that can use optical, laser and tactile measurement in the same inspection process.

That is why OGP is such a strong option for manufacturers reviewing inspection capability.

Why the CMM became the default

CMMs became the default because they were trusted, repeatable and widely accepted.

For many years, if a manufacturer needed a serious dimensional inspection answer, the conventional CMM was the obvious route. Aerospace, defence, automotive, medical and precision engineering companies built inspection processes around them. Customers understood them. Auditors understood them. Quality teams trusted them.

That history still matters.

But default habits can become expensive habits.

If every feature goes to the same CMM, the inspection room becomes a queue. Programmes wait for specialist input. First-off parts sit while production holds the set-up. Operators chase inspection results. Quality teams spend their day managing machine availability rather than improving inspection flow.

This is where many companies make the wrong investment decision.

They assume the answer is another conventional CMM.

Sometimes it is. More often, the better question is whether the work should be on a conventional CMM at all.

If the inspection workload includes visible features, small geometry, repeated external details, edge profiles, burr checks, height checks and tactile confirmation, a multisensor platform is usually a more flexible route.

Why OGP multisensor measurement is often the better move

The main advantage of OGP multisensor measurement is flexibility.

A conventional CMM gives you a tactile-led process. An OGP multisensor system gives you a broader inspection strategy. You can use optics where the feature is visible. You can use laser where height or surface-related checks suit that method. You can use touch probing where contact measurement is the right answer.

That is important because most real parts are not one type of measurement problem.

A machined aerospace bracket may have holes, slots, edge profiles, radii, counterbores, surface features and fitted details.

A precision turned component may need diameter checks, chamfers, small features and visual confirmation.

A stamped or thin part may need profile measurement without contact force moving the material.

An assembly may need both dimensional measurement and confirmation that a detail is present, seated correctly or free from obvious damage.

Forcing all of that through a tactile-only process is rarely the most efficient route.

OGP multisensor measurement allows the inspection routine to follow the part. The system can use the most appropriate sensor for each feature, within one platform, one programme and one reporting workflow.

Put simply: If one system can inspect visible geometry, measure fine features, use laser where suitable and still touch probe when required, it is usually the better place to start.

Faster measurement, easier programming and less CMM pressure

Speed is not only about how fast a machine moves.

In inspection, speed comes from the whole process: programming, set-up, operator involvement, feature count, repeatability, reporting and queue time.

A conventional CMM can become slow because it is often measuring feature by feature, point by point, through a programme that needs specialist input. That may be the right route for certain work, but it is inefficient when the part has many visible, repeated or optically accessible features.

OGP multisensor systems can make the process easier because the programme can be built around what the system can see and measure. Visible features can be captured optically. Repeated features can be handled in a routine. Other sensors can be brought in where needed.

That can reduce the amount of specialist CMM programming required, reduce the number of parts waiting for the same inspection resource and make suitable routines easier for trained operators to run.

For production teams, this is often the real value.

Not a theoretical metrology debate. Fewer parts waiting. Fewer avoidable bottlenecks. Better use of the inspection equipment already on site.

When would a conventional CMM still be required?

The case for a conventional CMM is narrower than many people assume.

A conventional CMM may still be required where the component is too large or too heavy for the available OGP system, or where the part cannot be fixtured practically within the OGP measuring envelope.

That means very large parts, very heavy components or awkward assemblies that exceed the available system travel, load capacity or practical handling method.

There is also a customer approval point. If a customer has mandated a specific CMM method, or an existing approved inspection plan is tied to a conventional CMM programme, then the method needs to be followed unless a change is agreed.

That is not a technical argument against OGP. It is a process approval issue.

Outside those cases, the default assumption should be challenged. If the part fits, the features are accessible and the method can be validated, OGP multisensor measurement gives the quality team more options than a tactile-only CMM process.

Choose the sensor by the feature, not by habit

The strongest inspection plans are built feature by feature.

Use optical measurement for visible edges, small holes, slots, radii, profiles and repeated 2D geometry.

Use laser or optical height measurement where the feature and surface condition suit that method.

Use touch probing where tactile confirmation is required.

Use a conventional CMM only where the part size, load, fixturing, customer method or existing approval makes it necessary.

That is a better approach than sending everything to the same machine because “that is what we have always used”.

The important point is that tactile measurement does not belong exclusively to the conventional CMM. On an OGP multisensor system, touch probing can sit alongside optical and laser measurement within the same inspection routine.

So the inspection team is not choosing between “proper CMM measurement” and “optical inspection”.

It is choosing between a narrower tactile-first process and a more flexible multisensor process.

Defence and aerospace: where this affects qualification and capacity

For defence and aerospace suppliers, inspection strategy affects qualification, documentation and production release.

First article inspection is a good example. During AS9102 FAI, the supplier needs verified results for the ballooned drawing characteristics. That does not mean every characteristic automatically belongs on a conventional CMM.

A better approach is to review the drawing feature by feature.

Which characteristics are visible?
Which features are repeated?
Which checks need visual confirmation as well as dimensional measurement?
Which results need tactile confirmation?
Which method has the customer specified?
Which parts of the inspection are creating delay?

For UAE and GCC machine shops moving into aerospace and defence supply chains, this can become a serious capacity issue. The workshop may be able to machine the part, but if every first-off, repeat batch and supplier quality check joins the same CMM queue, delivery control becomes harder.

OGP M-Series multisensor measurement gives these suppliers a more flexible route. It can support optical measurement, laser measurement and tactile probing within a single inspection approach, depending on the system and application.

That is useful for first article inspection, but it is just as relevant for repeat production, incoming inspection, supplier quality and process control.

Reducing CMM load with OGP multisensor measurement

Take an aerospace component with repeated visible features across several faces: threaded inserts, hole positions, edge locations, slots, small radii and visual checks around fitted details.

A conventional CMM can measure much of that work. That does not mean it is the best tool for the whole job.

On an OGP multisensor system, the inspection routine can be built around the feature types. Visible geometry can be measured optically. Height or surface-related checks can use the appropriate sensor where configured. Tactile probing can still be used where contact measurement is required.

That changes the role of the inspection process.

Instead of pushing the full inspection package through a conventional CMM, the work can be split intelligently. OGP takes the features that suit optical, laser or combined measurement. If a conventional CMM is still needed, it is reserved for the exceptions, not used as the default path.

This is especially useful for aerospace and defence suppliers because the inspection burden is rarely one dimension. It is the number of characteristics, the need for repeatable documentation, the programming effort, the inspection queue and the pressure to release production without weakening quality control.

The aim is not to defend the old CMM queue.

The aim is to build a better inspection process.

For manufacturers reviewing CMM capacity, OGP gives AIET Group a practical way to assess whether multisensor measurement can reduce inspection pressure, simplify programming and improve how measurement work is allocated.

View AIET Group’s OGP page or contact AIET Group to discuss a potential inspection or measurement application.

What to review before choosing a system

Before choosing between another conventional CMM and an OGP multisensor system, review the actual inspection workload.

Start with the bottleneck.

Is the issue measurement time, programming time, CMM availability, reporting, operator dependency, repeatability or customer approval?

Then look at the features causing most of the work.

If the part has repeated visible features, small holes, edge profiles, slots, radii, fitted inserts, burr checks or visual confirmation requirements, it should be reviewed for multisensor measurement.

If the inspection routine needs several measurement approaches, that is another strong signal. A part that needs optical measurement, height checks and tactile confirmation is exactly where a multisensor system becomes more attractive.

Then check the practical limits.

Does the part fit the available OGP measuring volume?
Can it be fixtured sensibly?
Is the part weight within the system capability?
Are the important features visible or reachable?
Does the customer specify the result, or do they specify the method?
Can the inspection be programmed and repeated by the people who will actually use it?

That review gives a much clearer answer than asking whether a CMM or multisensor system is “best”.

The better question is whether the inspection workload justifies a flexible multisensor platform. In many cases, it does.

How AIET Group helps

AIET Group helps manufacturers review inspection and measurement applications before committing to equipment.

That starts with the part, drawing and inspection requirement. From there, AIET can help identify which features are suited to optical measurement, which may need laser or touch probing, and whether the application is a good fit for OGP multisensor measurement.

AIET supports OGP multisensor measurement discussions, sample measurement routes, system selection, installation, operator training, maintenance and calibration planning.

The aim is practical: help UAE, GCC and Middle East manufacturers move beyond default CMM thinking and choose the inspection platform that gives the strongest technical and commercial result.

Speak to AIET Group

If you are reviewing CMM capacity, dimensional inspection bottlenecks or OGP multisensor measurement options, send AIET Group the drawing, part details and current inspection challenge.

Useful starting information includes photographs, the tightest tolerances, customer requirements, current measurement method and where the delay or uncertainty sits today.

Contact AIET Group to discuss a potential inspection or measurement application.

FAQ

What is multisensor measurement?

Multisensor measurement uses more than one measurement method on a single inspection platform. Depending on the system and configuration, that may include optical measurement, laser measurement and touch probing. The purpose is to match the sensor to the feature instead of forcing every measurement through one method.

Is OGP multisensor measurement better than a CMM?

OGP multisensor measurement is often the better starting point because it can combine optical, laser and tactile measurement in one platform. A conventional CMM may still be needed for very large or very heavy parts, or where a customer has mandated a specific CMM method.

Can an OGP multisensor system replace a CMM?

An OGP multisensor system can replace a large amount of work that might otherwise be sent to a conventional CMM, especially where the part fits the system and the features suit optical, laser or tactile multisensor measurement. For very large components or locked customer methods, a conventional CMM may still be required.

Does an OGP multisensor system still use a touch probe?

Yes. OGP multisensor systems can include touch probing depending on the system and configuration. That is why tactile measurement does not automatically mean a conventional CMM. Touch probing can be part of a multisensor inspection routine alongside optical and laser measurement.

When should we move inspection work off the CMM?

Move inspection work off the CMM when the features are visible, repeated, small, delicate or better suited to optical, laser or combined measurement. Common examples include holes, slots, edge profiles, small radii, burr checks, inserts, height checks and routines where CMM queue time is delaying production.

When is a conventional CMM still required?

A conventional CMM may still be required when the part is too large, too heavy or too awkward to fixture on the available OGP system. It may also be required where the customer has mandated a specific CMM method and the inspection route has not been re-approved.

Is OGP multisensor measurement suitable for aerospace and defence suppliers?

Yes, OGP multisensor measurement can be suitable for aerospace and defence suppliers where the system, method and reporting approach fit the inspection requirement. It is especially useful when the part has many visible characteristics, repeated features, visual checks and tactile confirmation requirements within the same inspection process.

What should we send AIET Group for an application review?

Send the drawing, part photographs, material, approximate size and weight, tightest tolerances, GD&T callouts, current inspection method and any customer-specific requirements. If available, include the ballooned drawing, inspection report format and details of the current bottleneck, such as programming time, CMM queue time or repeatability concerns.