hexagon logo

Pc-Dmis GD&T, Xactmeasure class summary

Pc-Dmis GD&T class summary by Wes Cisco


First I want to say that I have previously attended the Pc-Dmis Basic and Advanced courses. While I thought both of those were good, I felt this class taught me more, and was more important.

I tried to begin using Xactmeasure a few months ago and ran into issues. I appealed to the forum communities for help, but was unable to resolve most of my issues. My employer was receptive to the idea of sending me to the course, so I put off using Xactmeasure pending the class.

This is a three day class. The scope of this document is too narrow to fully cover that much material. I do not recommend anyone consider it a substitute for the class. I am trying to hit the “flags” that anyone attempting to use Xactmeasure without having had the class will need to know. Most of this is NOT in the help files. I requested it be added more than once during the class.

The class will NOT teach you GD&T. The purpose of the class rather is to teach you how properly use Pc-Dmis to dimension part programs compliant with ASME Y14.5M-1994.

The class focused on using Xactmeasure properly while acknowledging there are areas it does not perform properly and legacy dimensions should be used in those places instead. It is possible to switch back and forth between Xactmeasure and legacy in one program.

1) It was stressed several times that nominals must be correct. If they are not your report is GIGO.

2) Perhaps the biggest single thing I took away is the knowledge that in Xactmeasure Pc-Dmis takes the first datum in the FCF you build in Xactmeasure and levels Z+, then the second datum in the FCF is used to rotate X+ to.

3) Obviously this will yield proper results in only a small percentage of cases. The solution is in the advanced tab of the Xactmeasure window you select “current alignment” rather than “Datum Reference Frame”. When you do, Pc-Dmis will use the current alignment, exactly as you created it, rather than try to create a new alignment from the Datum Reference Frame you create in the FCF. However if your current alignment does not use the Datums in the Datum Reference Frame of the FCF you will get GIGO.

4) I have spent a little bit of time playing with this and in some cases using Datum Reference Frame will give the correct position value, but the axis will be flipped. The safe way is to always create an alignment in your program that represents the DRF and always choose current alignment in the advanced tab.

5) Multiple Datum Features. Also called “A-B” datums, where there is a Datum A on the part and a Datum B and then in some DRFs there is a Datum A-B listed. The help files of Pc-Dmis say that in Xactmeasure it is possible to type in A-B, even though it is not in the drop down menu. This DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY. That is straight from one of the two guys who wrote the training manual for the Pc-Dmis GD&T course.

6) The solution is to construct a feature that represents Datum A-B. If both are diameters on either end of a cylindrical part, (this is what I see most often), then construct a 3D line between them. The same advice as above about creating an alignment and using the current alignment rather than the DRF in the advance tab applies.


7) In the Advance tab of Xactmeasure on the right side is a box labeled GD&T standard. There are three options in the drop down. ASME Y14.5, ISO 1101, and Custom. Choosing current alignment will not change this. However if you check or uncheck Fit to Datums or Deviation Perp to Centerline it can change this. If you have ASME selected and it changes to Custom that means your results will not be compliant with ASME. This is supposed to work properly and to the best of my knowledge it does.


8) Minimum Circumscribed and Maximum Inscribed does not work properly on a radius. Use least squared if less than 270 degrees or funky results.

9) Ensure you take a sufficient number of hits. The instructor pointed out that in the Basic and Advanced classes, examples use barely enough hits to define the features for the sake of teaching the concepts, but not nearly enough hits for most real world applications. I was quite fond of this quote: “Things we taught you in the past were not incorrect, just insufficient.” He said their rule of thumb is for .0005” tolerance for size on a diameter requires at least 30 points. (total, not per level of a cylinder. 3 levels of 11 would be fine.)

10) Xactmeasure does not support modifiers for straightness. Use legacy.

11) For many form checks, Xactmeasure will only report the worst case or maximum deviation, however all hits can be reported by turning textural analysis on in the advance tab.

12) Remember #1 back up there at the top? Nominals must be correct. In legacy if your nominals are not correct when you create the dimension, you can change them in the edit window and the popup box asks if you want to update the nominals in the feature. In Xactmeasure you correct or change the nominal values in the advances tab and on the right hand side there is a tick box for the “update feature” column. If you tick that box it will carry the new nominal value back to the feature. WARNING: This will only work as advertised if you are creating the dimension in the same alignment you measured the feature in. For example if you measured the feature aligned to A/B/C and then you change alignments to B/D/F and try to use this pc-dmis will not properly update the nominals of the feature and in most cases it will crash.

13) Opposing planes. If you have a tang protruding from the part and it’s location is controlled by position, how do you account for MMC? The only way in pc-dmis for both legacy and Xactmeasure is to create a generic cylinder using a variable to assign the diameter based upon the width of the feature (distance between the opposing points or planes). The word is they are trying to come up with an autofeature that is essentially an inverse of a slot, but they have not gotten there yet.

14) Concentricity. They say the best way to check it with pc-dmis is to take multiple circles along the length and apply concentricity to each individually. Pc-Dmis uses the center of the circle, not opposing median points as the standard requires.

15) Profile. Make sure min/max is checked if using legacy. In Xactmeasure when checking profile of a surface you must choose least squared for the Best Fit algorithm, min/max is currently not available for 3D fitting.
  • Kudos and mucho rep to Master Cisco! thanks for the summary.
  • Thank you, Wes! I was waffling on whether or not to take this class and you've convinced me it's worth it.
  • Why the **** can't he share that information with the coders then...


    He does! Just wait for furure releases. It took the Y14.5 committee 15 years to make its revisions to the standard. Is there another CMM software that does better? An absolute NO!!! As none of you can agree on any one subject, neither can the coders. Heck, many of you don't understand GD&T much less know what it stands for. Not a slam, just an observation.
  • Thank you very much. I use this a lot with true position. It would always flip my datums and I couldn't figure out why... Now I know! "In Xactmeasure Pc-Dmis takes the first datum in the FCF you build in Xactmeasure and levels Z+, then the second datum in the FCF is used to rotate X+ to." It's beyond me why they would have it work this way, but hey, I get paid by the hour...


    I was told that they were working on this for awhile, but at least for now it has been abandoned. I can somewhat appreciate the complexity and difficulty of making this properly handle all possible DRFs, so I am not that upset that it is this way, since you have the option of choosing current alignment.

    What I do find extremely disturbing, and I expressed as much in class, is that there are no warnings if you don't take the class! The F1 help files say nothing about this. None of the "press releases" touting the wonders of Xactmeasure that I have seen mention this.

    IMNSHFO ideally current alignment would be the default option rather than Datum Reference Frame.





    Why the **** can't he share that information with the coders then...



    He does. However the coders also have bosses who may at times have other ideas. And then there is the fact that many humans are cantankerous and will do things the way they want to no matter who tells them it would be better to do it a different way. Of course I am sure that like me, you can say that none of the people manufacturing the products you inspect are like that. Neutral face



    Thank you, Wes! I was waffling on whether or not to take this class and you've convinced me it's worth it.


    It is. I would almost go so far as to say this class would be good for anyone writing programs that use GD&T to dimension. While the class focuses on Xactmeasure it also spends a good deal of time (at least 40% would be my guess), talking about what different FCFs mean, how to use pc-dmis to check those per the standard, and "easy mistakes" to watch out for.

    I would say that for someone relatively new to CMMs and/or GD&T this would be an excellent class even if they were sticking to 3.7MR4, but only after they had already taken the basic, advanced, and a decent GD&T class. I know that is more training that most employers are willing to invest in, especially in a short time frame.



    Unfortunately GD&T is often misunderstood, (serves it right for being so dense *haha*), by everyone from the design engineer to the final inspector. As such, Hexagon should have developed a class like this years ago. I suspect that they would have, except that they have been struggling to ensure pc-dmis actually handles this stuff properly first. I would likely agree with that prioritization. They still are not quite there, but they are getting close.
  • GD&T? huh? Gross Diapers & Twa... er, better not say that...

    Actually, it's NOT UP TO THE CODERS to decide what goes into this software, it is up to them to implement what the WAI management (non-inspectors) tell them to put into it. I just wish they would tell them to put in NO BUGS.


    Well Wes, you've set yourself up here, I hope you know. NOW, everytime someone doesn't get it, they are gonna me PM'ing the crap out of you to get training.



    [-]Huh? Can someone translate that for me please? [/-] Oh, I get it now. Funny how one fat fingered letter can totally throw me before the morning coffee levels peak. Let them PM. I will help when I can and probably tell lots of them to take the class.

    I realize I have set myself up to some extent, but that was not my intention. I was only trying to help our "community" by sharing what I considered to be important information that should be in the help files but is not. While I think the class was good and worth it, I also think that someone with my skills and experience with the software should be able to get most of this to work correctly from reading the help files. And I think that if the info I put into my original post were in the help file I would not have given up on Xactmeasure a few months ago when I first tried to use it.
  • I would say that for someone relatively new to CMMs and/or GD&T this would be an excellent class even if they were sticking to 3.7MR4, but only after they had already taken the basic, advanced, and a decent GD&T class. I know that is more training that most employers are willing to invest in, especially in a short time frame.


    Is it required to take all these other classes first? Because I might be able to squeeze one out of them.
  • Is it required to take all these other classes first? Because I might be able to squeeze one out of them.



    I am pretty sure the only prerequisite listed is the basic class. Those are just my recommendations for someone fairly new to pc-dmis & GD&T, say 3 years on the job or less. If you have been doing this stuff for several years then you are probably ready for this class. However you will get a lot more out of this class if you already have a good understanding of GD&T and the standard. As I mentioned, this class is not an introduction to GD&T class.
  • Wes,

    Great write up and good feedback. What I took from this is that I have been doing everything correctly for years before Xactmeasure came along, so I will keep doing things right with Legacy. It almost sounds like the software previously wasn't able to output correctly...hmmm.

    The main problem is the ppl using GD & T and callouts incorrectly, meaning Engineers....
  • Wes,

    Great write up and good feedback. What I took from this is that I have been doing everything correctly for years before Xactmeasure came along, so I will keep doing things right with Legacy. It almost sounds like the software previously wasn't able to output correctly...hmmm.

    The main problem is the ppl using GD & T and callouts incorrectly, meaning Engineers....



    The single big thing legacy can't do, that Xactmeasure does do properly is apply a material condition modifier to a datum.

    I could not agree with you conclusion more. What I like least is when I am the one who does not fully understand the standard.Alien
  • Thanks Wes... you helped clear up a few head scratchers.