hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 38 replies
  • Subscribers 223 subscribers
  • Views 381 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

PC-DMIS Software to Server connection unbearable. Please help.

Alvin_A2
Hello. I have a 7.10.7 SF electric machine running PC-DMIS 2020 R2. We all know the unfortunate notoriousness of software crashes. But, I am having too many issues and need help.

From my understanding, I have a virtual dongle and with that, every line of code or action I do with PC-DMIS communicates online to its server base. I have had my software crash several times just from saving as one example. There are also times when I try to re-open the software and when I open a project it says that the server is busy and I have to restart my computer to fix it. (I've checked my task manager and could not find anything to stop in order to avoid restarting the computer).

Should I try to receive a physical dongle like the older machines to avoid these issues? I never had this stuff happen until I started using the virtual dongle. I don't even know if I can do that to be honest.

Also, I haven't done my research thoroughly enough but I'm at the point where I feel I can't trust Exact Measurements versus Legacy anymore. Sometimes the differences in results can be over .001 (inches) and even greater. I know I've set up my datums properly for both ways to spit out the results. I also find it silly how in R1 you could get away with apparently a not properly constrained datum to give results that may be inaccurate and now 2020 R2 won't allow you to even create the feature if it's not constrained right with the datum scheme.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post! I appreciate it.
Parents Reply Children
  • in reply to JacobCheverie
    Hey there Jacob.

    This may be an ignorant statement but I've seen the crash reports entry field pop up for a decade, and this kind of issue seems to never have a real solution. The only difference I know is that I never had these problems when using a physical dongle.

    I regards to XactMeasure and GT Command, I see what you mean. I notice the name of the dimension box called out differently. The options box just looks the same to Xact.

    The reason being why I find this silly is, up until this Geometric Tolerance new feature forcing you to constrain things properly even moreso than before (which I agree is not a bad thing), it makes me think about all of the legacy dimensions that myself/anyone else who had dimensioned something may or may have not been correct. It's concering seeing how all the sudden these restrictions are incorporated and before the software let you create your dimension anyway.

    I appreciate the message. If anyone knows if it's possible to get a physical dongle instead of this virtual one, I believe that to be the answer.
  • in reply to JacobCheverie
    I understand your concern entirely. Some users seem to be dreading the potentially inevitable migration due to the exact same reason. If you have many older programs, it may be quite the task to migrate to the new Geometric Tolerance. I'd assume that is part of why Hexagon is still supporting Legacy. Even coming from XactMeasure and using custom report templates will be quite a task to migrate properly.

    In any event, it is a valid concern. The way I see it - If we or our co-workers were doing something wrong, there's no time like the present to get up to speed and fix it before any measurement errors continue. It is easier to turn a blind eye, but it's best to adjust when you can.
  • in reply to JacobCheverie
    ALVIN! (chipmunks, right?) Anyway, for old school LEGACY, unless you were trying to use DATUMS in your TP dimensions, I think everything else in Legacy is correct as you pretty much have to be aligned to the DRF when dimensioning, you are not trying to create a DRF for the FCF for the Legacy stuff. As long as you are aligned correctly to the datums, should be golden.
  • in reply to JacobCheverie
    Hey there Matthew. I usually have my alignment set to ABC for example if the FCF asks for those datums in a TP. However, there also is an option in legacy where you can select the datums you want to use and I have used that as well. The main issue is that Geometric Tolerance will not allow datum features to be created the way they are as they have worked in the past.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement