I did not contact them as I was able to AFMA all of my lenses with Spydercal in fewer exposures and less time than it would take to get everything set up with Focal, including lights, targets, steady mount, reshoots because of camera movement when manually setting AFMA on the 5D3, etc.
Most of my frustration with the software is that everything has to be rock solid and super stable through out the test. I even fabricated wooden V-blocks to support the lenses on a concrete floor so shot to shot the camera would not move...not even an earthquake would move the lens.
It was much MUCH easier to use the spydercal and just take maybe 8 to 10 shots using a tripod and cable release. The software pretty much needs ideal conditions to conduct it's analysis and given that it still does not provide decent enough results. I get plot points all over the place and most of the time the software just gives up. I take 8 to 10 shots with the spydercal and AF is consistently dead on. So it's not the lenses, it's not the camera (I've used two, 5DIII and a 7D which I've sold), it's not the setup I am using and I am confident NOTHING is moving between shots. I've given it the full sun for lighting, I've used Tungsten Halogen lamps. I've tried three different computers, XP, Win7 32bit and win7 64 bit. I've done most of the tests indoors except the long tele's which need a football field and I've wasted hours trying to appease the software into submission in all cases (though I had reasonable success with my old 24-70 2.8L which is the oldest of my lenses!)
At this point I'm not going to waste more time calling them as it's easier and faster to do the calibration with a SpyderCal. I have tried each new version since 1.4 but no real improvement. TurboCal does seem to produce a result every time but it's inconsistent from one test to the next and none of the results were even close to the manually calculated AFMA using the SpyderCal.
My frustration with the program is beyond words. So I just keep putting out there that when you use FoCal, you still need a way to verify the AFMA such as with a spydercal. Dont "trust" that FoCal has worked as expected. You need to verify what it's produced and at that point you might as well just use SpyderCal or LensCal in the first place.
When you AFMA your lenses with FoCal you never know if it's going to be correct or not. Even with very adequate lighting EV14+ I could not get consistent results that would equal what I got with using SpyderCal.
Sorry to hear that! I do have to say, though, that you seem to be in the minority.
Personally, I get consistent results, that match a manual estimate with a LensAlign Pro, even with the 1.9 beta version (although I will say that v1.8 crashed frequently for me under Mac OS X 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8, whereas v1.9b seems stable).
What suggestions for your inconsistent results were offered by Reikan support, when you contacted them?