If you used FILE I/O commands to get measurement text from Xact, there is a completely new library of commands for Geometric Tolerancing, in which you will have to get/make a script to modify EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM to convert the commands, so that text will export to a CSV correctly. That is why I am holding out on 2020 R2. I do not have the time to undertake that monstrosity.
If you used FILE I/O commands to get measurement text from Xact, there is a completely new library of commands for Geometric Tolerancing, in which you will have to get/make a script to modify EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM to convert the commands, so that text will export to a CSV correctly. That is why I am holding out on 2020 R2. I do not have the time to undertake that monstrosity.
It is only necessary to change the references in your assignments if you have used GETTEXT. If you used the FCFLOC1.MEAS syntax, it will still work. The reason GETTEXT no longer works is because it is a different command and so the datatypes have different enumeration. We made it a lot easier to access the data from a geometric tolerance command and you now have full access to all of the information on a per segment and per feature basis. For example to access the measured result of the 3rd feature from the fifth segment you would use FCFLOC1.SEGMENT[5].FEATURE[3].MEAS If you omit the SEGMENT and FEATURE arguments it will pull from the first feature in the first segment (which is what XactMeasure returned). I have posted an example script in the code samples section that converts existing assignments using GETTEXT into the new expression syntax for the geometric tolerance command. Here's the link
https://www.pcdmisforum.com/forum/pc-dmis-enterprise-metrology-software/pc-dmis-code-samples/478298-convert-xactmeasure-gettext-to-expressions-for-geometric-tolerance-commands#post478298
neil.challinor I understand the .MEAS would work, but when my dimensions are named with just numbers, for example 1, the .MEAS command does not work, hence why I needed to use the GETTEXT command.
Naming features, alignments or dimensions as numbers has always been problematic and is not recommended for precisely this reason. It is because the assignment can not distinguish between a feature named 1 and the number 1. The way around it is to reference it as a pointer by enclosing the 1 in squiggly brackets - for example ASSIGN/V1={1}.MEAS would work whereas ASSIGN/V1=1.MEAS would not.
