hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 24 replies
  • Subscribers 224 subscribers
  • Views 315 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Xactmeasure axis swap

Wes Cisco
This is probably the last xact-straw for me.

After a week of waiting for the insider Ace card to get back on the compound datum and page break data drop I have heard not a peep. Now I have a new Xactmare. When I create a position dimension, inexplicably the x and y nominal and measured data is caticornered. That is the X nom is -1.6 and the -.72. The measured values in the autofeature in the edit window show -1.59781 & -.71840. All hunkydoryish. Then when I use Xactmeasure to report the position is show the correct noms, but for -1.6 the measured shows -.71779 and the -.72 shows 1.59769. I then dimension the straight location for the same feature, in a vain attempt to understand, and is shows the same as the edit window autofeature.

I have tried all the possible combinations of options in the advanced tab of the position window. I am going to resort to 1-800-343-7933 to ensure they have record of my xactwoes.


Has anyone else seen this? TIA
 
DATUM_S    =FEAT/CONTACT/CYLINDER,CARTESIAN,IN,LEAST_SQR
            THEO/<-1.6,-0.72,-9.75>,<0,0,1>,1,0.75
            ACTL/<-1.59781,-0.7184,-9.75>,<-0.0002616,0.0002607,0.9999999>,1.00121,0.75
            TARG/<-1.6,-0.72,-9.75>,<0,0,1>
            START ANG=0,END ANG=360
            DIRECTION=CCW
            ANGLE VEC=<1,0,0>
            SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
            SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
              NUMHITS=7,NUMLEVELS=3,DEPTH=0.2,END OFFSET=0.1,PITCH=0
              SAMPLE HITS=0,SPACER=0
              AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0
              FIND HOLE=DISABLED,ONERROR=NO,READ POS=NO
            SHOW HITS=NO
79, 138, 167 =TRUE POSITION OF DATUM_S
            FEATCTRLFRAME/SHOWNOMS=NO,SHOWPARAMS=YES,SHOWEXPANDED=YES
            CADGRAPH=OFF,REPORTGRAPH=OFF,TEXT=OFF,MULT=10.00,ARROWDENSITY=100,OUTPUT=BOTH,UNITS=IN
            COMPOSITE=NO,FIT TO DATUMS=YES,DEV PERPEN CENTERLINE=ON,OUTPUT ALIGNMENT=Datum Reference Frame
              PRIMARY DIMENSION/TRUE POSITION,DIAMETER,0.01,<MC>,<PZ>,<len>,B,A,C
              SECONDARY DIMENSION/<Dim>,<tol>,<MC>,M,<dat>,<dat>
              NOTE/79, 138, 167
            FEATURES/DATUM_S,,
DIM TESTHOLE_1= LOCATION OF CYLINDER DATUM_S  UNITS=IN ,$
GRAPH=OFF  TEXT=OFF  MULT=10.00  OUTPUT=BOTH  HALF ANGLE=NO
AX    NOMINAL       +TOL       -TOL       MEAS        DEV     OUTTOL
X     -1.60000    0.00300    0.00300   -1.59781    0.00219    0.00000
Y     -0.72000    0.00300    0.00300   -0.71840    0.00160    0.00000
D      1.00000    0.00200    0.00000    1.00121    0.00121    0.00000
END OF DIMENSION TESTHOLE_1
Attached Files
  • it is still not widely used. I wonder why.

    Because it is different.

    Truth be told, I like it (mostly). It just took a while to understand it and why it reports some of the things it reports.
    If it would just actually report nominals reliably everytime, it might get a few more converts.

    Conversely, it is also the reason our SMA has lapsed. Problems in 4.2MR1 are still reported to exist in 2010. My main reason to suffer through a further upgrade would be to have a report that worked every time. Still waiting on that one....
  • Because it is different.

    Truth be told, I like it (mostly). It just took a while to understand it and why it reports some of the things it reports.
    If it would just actually report nominals reliably everytime, it might get a few more converts.

    Conversely, it is also the reason our SMA has lapsed. Problems in 4.2MR1 are still reported to exist in 2010. My main reason to suffer through a further upgrade would be to have a report that worked every time. Still waiting on that one....


    Yeah, it is because it is new and different, not because it doesn't work properly. Neutral face
  • Yeah, it is because it is new and different, not because it doesn't work properly. Neutral face
    Wes, can you send me your program? CAD model?? You know where to send it.
  • Wes, can you send me your program? CAD model?? You know where to send it.


    CAD model? hahahahaha. I don't get those, and if I did I am sure I could not share them either. I can not send the drawing, my customer would freak. I have concluded that trying to bring legacy up to Xactmeasure is a lost cause. This program is a case of that. I do appreciate your offer. I will zip and send you the program. My goal is not to bash the Hexagoons. I would much prefer this stuff worked great and I could learn to be an Xactmeasure guru to new adopters.
  • CAD model? hahahahaha. I don't get those, and if I did I am sure I could not share them either. I can not send the drawing, my customer would freak. I have concluded that trying to bring legacy up to Xactmeasure is a lost cause. This program is a case of that. I do appreciate your offer. I will zip and send you the program. My goal is not to bash the Hexagoons. I would much prefer this stuff worked great and I could learn to be an Xactmeasure guru to new adopters.

    Wes, i just got done looking at your program. I was able to produce the results you wanted by creating a brand new XactMeasure true position callout. Hmm, I don't know what was done differently. I did use the "use current alignment" and turned off the "use datums" stuff. See my attachments.
  • Wes, i just got done looking at your program. I was able to produce the results you wanted by creating a brand new XactMeasure true position callout. Hmm, I don't know what was done differently. I did use the "use current alignment" and turned off the "use datums" stuff. See my attachments.

    Thank you. In between running other parts I just opened the program offline and was able to do the same. I know that I tried using current alignment and turning off the use datums and creating an new Xactmeasure position dimension, all more than once, but it is possible that I did not try current alignment and use datums off in the initial creation of a dimension, but only with opening an existing dimension. I also just double checked and the dia. 1.550 feature immediately before the dia. 1.000 Datum S was reported correctly using the datum reference frame with use datum fit checked. The only difference between them is size and location in the vector axis and the fact that I swapped probes before taking hits in the 1.000, but the tip orientation is the same and all probes were calibrated immediately before running the program. A0B0 first, always.

    Why do I not have to use current alignment and turn use datums off 99% of the time? Why this time?

    Why does it flip the x and y values like that but location reports them correctly? It shows the correct values in the feature. It shows the correct nominals in the position advanced tab area, but then reports the values callywupused. Makes no sense. I could see if the X that should be 1.6 was reported nom and actual for the Y .720 and the other way around, but to report the nom 1.6 and the actual as .720 ???

    I also checked by opening both positions windows and looking at the graphics screen which shows a second trihedron representing the datum reference frame selected in the position window. They are identical. How can I trust this stuff? This is why I never used datums in legacy, but always made hard alignments and reported position from the alignment I created rather than some sneaky behind the scenes black box I can't see or verify.


    I want to understand.
  • Yeah, it is because it is new and different, not because it doesn't work properly. Neutral face

    Before it didn't work properly, we didn't like it because it was different. Oh course, now we have a new reason to dislike it.

    I appreciate what they're trying to simulate, but I have to stay away from sharp objects when programming now.....
  • Before it didn't work properly, we didn't like it because it was different. Oh course, now we have a new reason to dislike it.

    I appreciate what they're trying to simulate, but I have to stay away from sharp objects when programming now.....


    No, I actually have been giving Xactmeasure a try precisely because it is different. Because I think having the exact FCF from the drawing in the report is a good thing. Furthermore I have heard from a few sources I believe know what they are talking about assert that Xactmeasure does a better job of conforming to ASME Y14.5M-1994 than legacy does.

    I have no problem eating crow because there is always a lesson sauce to help it along. In the last month or so that I have been trying to migrate to Xactmeasure I have encountered several issues. My appeals to the forums have not resulted in satisfactory workarounds, much less solutions in most cases.
  • So has everyone who uses Xactmeasure checked into this thread? Slight smile


    I agree its a great idea. The execution leaves something to be desired.
  • So has everyone who uses Xactmeasure checked into this thread? Slight smile


    I agree its a great idea. The execution leaves something to be desired.

    Xactree as the wrascally wrabbit would have said.

    Or any of the other Xactmeasure threads I have started in the last couple of weeks?

    I apparently misunderstood your previous post to mean you felt I just wanted something to bellyache about.

    I really thought more people were using Xactmeasure and that the major flaws would be worked out by now given it debuted with 4.0.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement