Fit To Datums

The reason the holes look so **** good is becuase instead of PCdmis using the center of the datum holes as 'master', it uses the hole + MMC to SHIFT the part around. It will shift it as much as it can (and still keep the datums on an imaginary pin) to put the dimensioned hole as close to nominals as it can.

BEST SUGGESTION:
Create an alignment using the datums for the TP callout, then simply TP the hole WITHOUT using datums so you can see how the hole actually and truely relates to the datum holes. The way Pcdmis does it, they SHOULD also be reporting the location of the shifted datum so you can see what it is doing. I think it is pure ***** the way it does it. The MMC bonus for the datum holes SHOULD show up as a bonus to the TP for the hole you are dimensioning (and I think about 99% of the other users feel the same way). It USED to do it this way, way back in the dawn of pre-history, but it made too much sense to all the users, so they changed it.

The reason the holes look so **** good is becuase instead of PCdmis using the center of the datum holes as 'master', it uses the hole + MMC to SHIFT the part around. It will shift it as much as it can (and still keep the datums on an imaginary pin) to put the dimensioned hole as close to nominals as it can.

BEST SUGGESTION:
Create an alignment using the datums for the TP callout, then simply TP the hole WITHOUT using datums so you can see how the hole actually and truely relates to the datum holes. The way Pcdmis does it, they SHOULD also be reporting the location of the shifted datum so you can see what it is doing. I think it is pure ***** the way it does it. The MMC bonus for the datum holes SHOULD show up as a bonus to the TP for the hole you are dimensioning (and I think about 99% of the other users feel the same way). It USED to do it this way, way back in the dawn of pre-history, but it made too much sense to all the users, so they changed it.