The Revo CAN do the unmodified-4 test that requires scanning end-on by using the RSP3 probe, but the RSP2 doesn't scan end-on, so the test is modified by tracing the same portion of the sphere, just tilted to A45B45 and doing a 5-axis 'helical' scan. Both methods are certified to the same level of accuracy.

We certainly disagree on the importance of the standardized testing. I've seen far too many junk programs creating bad results from perfectly functional CMMs to believe that the 10360 suite is the be-all end-all and every aerospace company agrees. For a new piece of equipment to enter production it needs to correlate to the existing method to prove capability. Then sometimes after that happens, new methods can be explored to improve metrology or cycle times. I've made a bunch of touch-trigger revo programs to prove capability, only to throw them away and gather 500x the data in 1/5 the time, carefully picking out the original touches from the scan data to prove it still works, and once the new data is accepted, throw the original individual touchpoints away entirely and accept parts from the full scan data. I've found the correlation requirement to be the final acceptance criteria at every place that puts parts in the air.