Best Thing About Met/Cal

[CalLabSolutions]

I want to get some realworld information from actual calibration technicians who use Met\Cal in their calibration labs.   I want to know what feature of the software you find most benificial.   

So what is it that makes Met/Cal better than all the other software packages on the market?

Why do you use Met/Cal?

What do you use it to calibrate?

[flew-da-coup]

I like how easy it is to Write, Modify, fix & edit cal programs.

[scottbp]

Yes, MET/CAL is flexible, you can write a procedure for just about anything that has an IEEE-488 interface or RS-232 port, but unfortunately, no USB or ethernet controlled instrument support (as of yet... any plans of implementing that?)

But automated calibrations is about the only thing MET/CAL is good for. Sure, you can write procedures that you can type in readings from something manually operated, e.g. an analog voltmeter, a dial pressure gauge, or a torque wrench, but try implementing a MET/CAL procedure for something with a lot of readings to take, such as an 81 piece gage block set or a weight set with many weights, and MET/CAL just falls flat on its face. I've played with the Manual MET/CAL application, but it is cumbersome to use and inflexible, and just like "regular" MET/CAL, you can't save your work halfway through, or even print out a blank template with all the readings to take so you can write them down, then type everything into MET/CAL after taking all the readings. What is needed is a way to import data from Excel spreadsheets into MET/CAL, and have MET/CAL pull up the correct Excel spreadsheet to use for each instrument.

Another thing I hate about MET/CAL is the way it tracks calibrations by asset numbers instead of work orders. MET/TRACK is good for keeping up with one company's assets, but for cal labs that have hundreds of customers, the MET/TRACK database can get out of hand. Therefore you need an external work order management software to manage daily production and tell the status of a piece of equipment (awaiting work, waiting on parts, which technicians have open workorders, which equipment is finished and waiting pickup, etc.) 

So what software do other labs out there use for scheduling their workload and keeping up with daily production? If you're able to do this with MET/TRACK, how?

[michthai]

The latest build of manual metcal does allow you to combine data sheets.   If you have any suggested improvements for manual metcal contact Steve Griffin at Fluke.   He is receptive to every suggestion that will make that product better.   He can probably answer your other questions as well.

[michthai]

Fluke support is very good.   It also helps to have one of the top metcal procedure writers in the U. S.   He has written nearly 2000 procedures on everything from meters to multifunction calibrators to spectrum analyzers.   Our electrical lab is approximately 96% automated via metcal.   We cut our manning from 15 techs to 6.

[MRD]

I have been using various versions of Met/Cal since 1993 and SureCal since 1998 and I can say that they both have their niche.   Met/Cal is a huge bang for the buck you get over 5000 procedures with your initial purchase, mind you some are redundant, 5500, 5520, 5700, 5720 and so on.   Met/Track is good for in house asset management.   

I do have to offer a disclaimer, I do work for the company that offers SureCal and there is nothing I've seen to give me the impression that it's going away.   I started using it in 98 when I worked for a leasing agent and like it was mentioned before you can teach someone off the street how to calibrate with it.   The Flexible standards is a huge plus, you can use an 8902 as a 436 without having to swap equipment around.   

If you don't have time to write your own procedures and have the money they compliment each other quite well.   Met/Cal for DMMs, scopes and Fluke products while SureCal is good for RF.   I'd be comparing what you're going to be calibrating as well as what standards you have onto of looking at the software.   Having someone write and test code for something that someone has already spent years testing can be an endless money pit.

Mark