"primary point does not lie on secondary axis, tertiary not allowed"

I can’t picture the part “Series of points (contour in an area within zplus)” and its orientation in relationship to ABC in my head. It’s hard to tell without seeing the drawing and/or the code.
Geometrically doesn’t make sense to PC-DMIS, and it is probably right.
Have you tried Legacy?

Thank You very much for the inquiry.
In a nutshell,

I started from scratch again. However, instead of a line at -B-, I used a plane. Instead of a circle at -C-, I used a cylinder. Constructed Pierce point and used that for X and Y origin.
It then reported appropriately.(perhaps something else was corrected during the re-write)
Then, during another program, I got the same message. This time there were two diameters. Each -B- and -C- respectively. Plane as -A-.
We went ahead and reported the profiles without using -C-as part of the FCF. One of our customers programmers told us to go ahead that way, because dmis didn't like having two different datums on the same axis or plane. Any similar conclusions?

I had a similar thing happen the other day. PC-DMIS seems to be sensitive about have a line defined as the secondary datum. For it to work reliably you need to go that extra step, as you discovered, and explicitly define the plane, perpendicular to A, that the line is being used to establish. A datum reference frame is 3 mutually perpendicular planes. While it is sufficient to only measure a plane, line, and point to have enough information to define these 3 planes it is still necessary to define the three planes for Xactmeasure to calculate the DRF reliably.

I discovered this the other day when I did the following:

- Established alignment with measured plane, line, and point.
- Measured an angled face that was at 28 deg. YZ rotation from datum A.
- Defined this new face as datum D
- Measured a hole normal to datum D.
- Tried to report this hole out to D|B|C
- Because datum B was a line and not a plane it would not allow me to do this and gave the error message you mention above.
- Changing datum B to a plane, or constructing a new line perpendicular to datum D and calling that datum B solved the problem. So the problem is that Xactmeasure looks at the vector of the line defined as datum B, this vector is not perpendicular to the primary datum, so it errors out.

HI

Im dragging up a post from the past.

My question more revolves around whether I should be doing the steps suggested or not.

I have a 3,2,1 datum system defined on the print, these are labeled A,B,C respectively. I then have a callout for a profile of a surface to A|B|C which then shows the error mentioned in the OP. The B datum, (created using the two points) is certainly the problem as it is clearly at an angle to datum A.

Wouldn't creating a plane along the line change the datum's and how they function?

For now I have created the dimension in Legacy but this certain customer does like to see the DRF used, on the report.

HI

Im dragging up a post from the past.

My question more revolves around whether I should be doing the steps suggested or not.

I have a 3,2,1 datum system defined on the print, these are labeled A,B,C respectively. I then have a callout for a profile of a surface to A|B|C which then shows the error mentioned in the OP. The B datum, (created using the two points) is certainly the problem as it is clearly at an angle to datum A.

Wouldn't creating a plane along the line change the datum's and how they function?

For now I have created the dimension in Legacy but this certain customer does like to see the DRF used, on the report.

Is it meant to be perpendicular to A?

Is it meant to be perpendicular to A?

I don't think so looking at the print. there will always be an angle on the line because of where the points are defined.

I don't think so looking at the print. there will always be an angle on the line because of where the points are defined.

Are the datums defined with the typical datum symbol or as iterative alignment points? (sorry, not quite sure of the proper terms)

can you construct a perpendicular line from the relationship of -A- and -B-?

Are the datums defined with the typical datum symbol or as iterative alignment points? (sorry, not quite sure of the proper terms)

They're iterative alignment points

can you construct a perpendicular line from the relationship of -A- and -B-?

Could try that, I havn't yet. But again couldn't that change the definition of the datum?

They're iterative alignment points

Well in that case the correct method would be to do your iterative alignment using the points given, then construct Alignment constructions (Plane / Line, Origin Pnt) then define them as the datum features and use them in the FCF.


Make sure you get the workplanes right when constructing the Alignment constructions.