Your Products have been synced, click here to refresh
I can only speak for myself and my unique applications.
Xact has improved a great deal since I attended the class and wrote the review nearly 5 years ago.
1) definitely concur, although I was not afforded the luxury of XactMeas class. it HAS come a long way.
I mostly use legacy.
First, I have lots of programs that were written with legacy dimensions and I am not about to try to convert them to Xactmeasure. Even if I had nothing better to do, I can think of several other easier ways to crash Pc-Dmis.
2) a NB, my friend. Xact cannot be the root cause of all Demon crashes. I suspect most of them are from too many chefs in the Hexagon kitchen, and one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
(Wilcox should not attempt to serve a five course menu when still mastering burgers 'n fries and basic condiments) Seems to be an internal tug-of-war when deciding what's to be on the menu.
Secondly, almost all of my planar Datum Features are constructed from auto vector points. I have multiple reasons for this approach rather than autoplane that are irrelevant here. The point is Xact sometimes has some issues with Constructed Datum Features and that in and of itself is enough reason for me to steer away from it.
3) I do the same planar dance. (use avp's) ....not a big fan of autoplane. I try to roll with the punches in this regard, but if the road gets too bumpy, i'll fall back to legacy if needed.
Thirdly, I absolutely despise the fact that I can't see the result in the Edit Window. (Real Programmers Only do it in Command Mode.) I tried the status window workaround, because there just weren't enough competing windows on my screen already, but then with the 2012? (or maybe 2012mr1?) version that created the great blue bar time wasting show, I have not tried it since. Frankly I don't see any viable reason they make an Xact dimension display the axial & GD&T values it kicks to the report window in the command window too. A String is A String is A String.
4) Yeah, a big PITA not seeing results in the EW. I suppose there must be a reason why that is. It does add an element of suspense, though.
All that said, I do use it some. I would say 20-30% of new programs have at least some Xactmeasure in them. Often, when I do use Xact it will be for unique FCFs and things like Perp & Flatness, while still using mostly legacy for position FCFs. On the rare occasion that I get a small/simple part in, I will usually try all Xactmeasure first. I like having the FCF on the CMM report identical to the FCF on the drawing. And of course where I, ( or more correctly one of my customers ), wants to see the MMB on the report . . . I never do that in legacy.
5) I've grown to like XactMeas. A work in progress to be sure, but I know our inspectors like it for that FCF-on-print/FCF-on-CMM-report comparison. That said, there is still (imho) no fail-safe in this endeavor. Remain ever-vigilant!
HTH
p.s. Wes, you should copyright the green text used in your postings. It lets me know there is valuable information contained therein.
I can only speak for myself and my unique applications.
Xact has improved a great deal since I attended the class and wrote the review nearly 5 years ago.
1) definitely concur, although I was not afforded the luxury of XactMeas class. it HAS come a long way.
I mostly use legacy.
First, I have lots of programs that were written with legacy dimensions and I am not about to try to convert them to Xactmeasure. Even if I had nothing better to do, I can think of several other easier ways to crash Pc-Dmis.
2) a NB, my friend. Xact cannot be the root cause of all Demon crashes. I suspect most of them are from too many chefs in the Hexagon kitchen, and one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
(Wilcox should not attempt to serve a five course menu when still mastering burgers 'n fries and basic condiments) Seems to be an internal tug-of-war when deciding what's to be on the menu.
Secondly, almost all of my planar Datum Features are constructed from auto vector points. I have multiple reasons for this approach rather than autoplane that are irrelevant here. The point is Xact sometimes has some issues with Constructed Datum Features and that in and of itself is enough reason for me to steer away from it.
3) I do the same planar dance. (use avp's) ....not a big fan of autoplane. I try to roll with the punches in this regard, but if the road gets too bumpy, i'll fall back to legacy if needed.
Thirdly, I absolutely despise the fact that I can't see the result in the Edit Window. (Real Programmers Only do it in Command Mode.) I tried the status window workaround, because there just weren't enough competing windows on my screen already, but then with the 2012? (or maybe 2012mr1?) version that created the great blue bar time wasting show, I have not tried it since. Frankly I don't see any viable reason they make an Xact dimension display the axial & GD&T values it kicks to the report window in the command window too. A String is A String is A String.
4) Yeah, a big PITA not seeing results in the EW. I suppose there must be a reason why that is. It does add an element of suspense, though.
All that said, I do use it some. I would say 20-30% of new programs have at least some Xactmeasure in them. Often, when I do use Xact it will be for unique FCFs and things like Perp & Flatness, while still using mostly legacy for position FCFs. On the rare occasion that I get a small/simple part in, I will usually try all Xactmeasure first. I like having the FCF on the CMM report identical to the FCF on the drawing. And of course where I, ( or more correctly one of my customers ), wants to see the MMB on the report . . . I never do that in legacy.
5) I've grown to like XactMeas. A work in progress to be sure, but I know our inspectors like it for that FCF-on-print/FCF-on-CMM-report comparison. That said, there is still (imho) no fail-safe in this endeavor. Remain ever-vigilant!
HTH
p.s. Wes, you should copyright the green text used in your postings. It lets me know there is valuable information contained therein.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. | Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement |