hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 221 subscribers
  • Views 313 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

2020 R2 True Position Datum Callouts

AverageInspector
Good afternoon,

For a momentary fix I have resorted to using legacy mode to get this to work for now but I really don't want to use legacy mode for 1000+ feature reporting, I'm sure you can sympathize lol

I have been tasked with writing a program that has 3 shifts (part is 136" long and machine travel is 59.750"), and when programming the middle section I have to use a theoretical for Datum E and H (because they're unreachable). I did the typical thing and created a generic feature, with comments that the operator can input actuals for X and Y locations that turn into assignments within the dimensional data for the datums, based on results from the 1st program where they could be reached.

The issue I have is when trying to dimension a feature (circle feature, true position callout to D/H/E) it will not allow me to select the datums I assigned (Datum D is a reachable Plane, Datum H and E are both theoretical's from section 1 program data) and I have to adjust the alignment and use Legacy Mode to get results.

Is there a rule against Plane/Point/Point datum schemes in R2? I used to do this same thing in R1 all the time without fail. Does the math in R2 require something more than a point for a secondary datum? Do I need to create a 2nd point offset in X from the data of datum H to make a line, and then will be allowed to use the line as the secondary datum callout?

Attaching a copy of the print
Attached Files
Parents
  • If the two constructed points have the same Y value as the first, then constructing the plane shouldn't make any difference from the point (short of PC-DMIS not liking the point datum). A planar datum feature should be measured as a plane anyway because the high point of the plane should constrain translation. The arrow in the image below points to the point that should constrain translation in X. If you only probe the center of the plane as a single point, you could be quite off.



    Have you checked out the new (2020 R2+) PC-DMIS help files? There is a large amount of information regarding the new Geometric Tolerance command, including error message diagnostics and information on datum features with and without surface data.

    https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...ves_Datums.htm

    Check out the section "Datum Plane Samples". It appears that PC-DMIS treats a point as a planar sample and can only be used as a tertiary datum.
Reply
  • If the two constructed points have the same Y value as the first, then constructing the plane shouldn't make any difference from the point (short of PC-DMIS not liking the point datum). A planar datum feature should be measured as a plane anyway because the high point of the plane should constrain translation. The arrow in the image below points to the point that should constrain translation in X. If you only probe the center of the plane as a single point, you could be quite off.



    Have you checked out the new (2020 R2+) PC-DMIS help files? There is a large amount of information regarding the new Geometric Tolerance command, including error message diagnostics and information on datum features with and without surface data.

    https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...ves_Datums.htm

    Check out the section "Datum Plane Samples". It appears that PC-DMIS treats a point as a planar sample and can only be used as a tertiary datum.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement