hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 50 replies
  • Subscribers 223 subscribers
  • Views 478 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Making 2 Part Programs into 1. One Graphic, One report

DCHRM
I have a top half part program, and a bottom half. Is there a way I can merge the two? I want to run the top half, program A, then input a comment to the operator for them to flip the part, touch off, then measure the bottom half. All using one graphic, one report, one model. I don't want the features measured on the bottom half, program B, to be in space. I want the features to be pulled from the same model used in program A. Then dimension all 500 items in one report.

Can an equate alignment work? I thought those were used if the part moves laterally in any direction. But in this case, I need to flip the part to measure the bottom half.

Any advice?
Parents
  • So now.. about a year later... I need to prove that the equate process is sound....

    Has anyone ran into issues using the equate?

    My only issue so far, is that sometimes i cannot grab the same planar points, but i do probe the same circles. So I'll probe 3 hits on Datum A 2 cirlces. interative. then go. Flip it, probe 3 points on a parallel surface to datum A, and still grab the same 2 holes. equate done.

    The boss says that if I dont grab the same 3 points from the 1st aln, then the equate is equating incorrectly.

    I just cant explain the process correctly to justify the method.

    Ander posted earlier that the uncertainty will increase. But does the equate malfunction if you're not using the same features? I do, just not the planar ones.

    Does this make sense?
Reply
  • So now.. about a year later... I need to prove that the equate process is sound....

    Has anyone ran into issues using the equate?

    My only issue so far, is that sometimes i cannot grab the same planar points, but i do probe the same circles. So I'll probe 3 hits on Datum A 2 cirlces. interative. then go. Flip it, probe 3 points on a parallel surface to datum A, and still grab the same 2 holes. equate done.

    The boss says that if I dont grab the same 3 points from the 1st aln, then the equate is equating incorrectly.

    I just cant explain the process correctly to justify the method.

    Ander posted earlier that the uncertainty will increase. But does the equate malfunction if you're not using the same features? I do, just not the planar ones.

    Does this make sense?
Children
  • in reply to DCHRM
    How far different are we talking? Can you not just probe a few points on the surface around the holes?

    From my understanding and use of equate it is better to use all the same features and surfaces. However you are still picking up on the same two holes which are the most important features in this case. Is the surface the same surface just in different positions?

    EDIT: just read it was a parallel surface, this may introduce some error. especially if the surfaces are machined and could be different every time.
  • in reply to DCHRM
    The boss is right. (nobody likes to hear that)

    In order for the metrology aspect to be sound, you need to probe the same points. In addition to the possible parallelism error, the amount the parallel plane is off from nominal is induced into the flopped position as measument error in the Z direction.

    Equate isn't malfunctioning, but
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement