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.
  • i hate using xact measure.
    i hate xact measure when i try to report a callout, for instance perpendicularity, and on the first attempt the software declares the feature oot, but when i report it in Legacy, its with a few tenths. I go back and open up the xact measure callout, refresh, and refresh the report, and the feature now measures exactly what the legacy dimension calls out.

    i have to go through this every time?
  • This is probably one of the most extensive helpful posts I have read about Xactmeasure. For this reason I would like to try and squash an issue over the 'datum' definitions in Xactmeasure.

    I know along the way I have read/heard of instances where constructed features used as a datum are not recommended in use with Xactmeasure. I have also witnessed instances where constructed features used as a datum have had no evidence of causing issues.

    I am not a religious user of Xactmeasure but I can see LARGE potential in its usage if performed properly. Does anyone have any working knowledge on this issue?
  • so, is Exact measure is Exact and is it worth to use it vs. Legacy? Would you still use legacy now that you understand how Exact measure works?
  • so, is Exact measure is Exact and is it worth to use it vs. Legacy? Would you still use legacy now that you understand how Exact measure works?




    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    HTH


  • Another great gift to make my life easier. I'm going to copy and paste it to my files. Thanks Wes, you are a generous soul.

  • 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. Slight smile




    in other words:
    +1 Mr. Cisco
  • in other words:
    +1 Mr. Cisco


    Regarding your postscript; Not always. I can be downright silly at times. Rolling eyes
  • i hate using xact measure.
    i hate xact measure when i try to report a callout, for instance perpendicularity, and on the first attempt the software declares the feature oot, but when i report it in Legacy, its with a few tenths. I go back and open up the xact measure callout, refresh, and refresh the report, and the feature now measures exactly what the legacy dimension calls out.

    i have to go through this every time?

    I've had the same issue with it, usually with surface profile callouts. It will show up as out of tolerance initially, but if you F9 it and select the feature again and hit Create and then refresh the readout, it shows in tolerance. It's annoying, especially when you have CMM operators that either can't remember to do this before they panic and call the programmer, or else just aren't inclined to think for themselves...
  • This is fixed on v2010MR3 I saw the beta version at Hexagon. So you won't have to select "Current alignment" in the advance tab.


    I wish this was the case, but we are currently using 2014MR1SP2 and I've had it do the same thing (inverting the datums) specifically on true position. It will put the X value in as the Z value or vice versa. And the only way I have found so far to resolve the issue is to switch to "Current Alignment".