Does the new Geo Tol GD&T library support simultaneous evaluation for
composite position, or do you still have to construct customized DRF's / BF alignments to achieve?
Does the new Geo Tol GD&T library support simultaneous evaluation for composite position, or do you still have to construct customized DRF's / BF alignments to achieve?
No. Not directly. Here is an excerpt from the 2021.1 help file:
PC-DMIS does not consider lower segments of composite position or profile tolerances simultaneously. The upper segment is simultaneous with other tolerance commands, but PC-DMIS considers any lower segments independently of everything else.
I think you need to report the lower segment of a simultaneous evaluation separately to get the math to work right.
No. Not directly. Here is an excerpt from the 2021.1 help file:
PC-DMIS does not consider lower segments of composite position or profile tolerances simultaneously. The upper segment is simultaneous with other tolerance commands, but PC-DMIS considers any lower segments independently of everything else.
I think you need to report the lower segment of a simultaneous evaluation separately to get the math to work right.
Yeah I just installed 2020 to try it out. It's defiantly not supported and only sim's the upper segment. That's unfortunate, was hoping I didn't have to create a bunch of single segment customized drf's
Is there any reason to why PC-DMIS doesn't support this? I've looked over Y14.5 quite a bit and haven't seen anything saying this is an illegal callout.
I figured this was just another 2019 bug or limitation and seems to be present up to 2021.
This is the
strange definition listed in 2019 help:
For composite position or composite profile FCFs, the lower segments are not evaluated simultaneously. This is in accordance with the default condition for ASME Y14.5 simultaneous evaluation (both 1994 and 2009). According to the Y14.5 standard for simultaneous evaluation of composite callouts, if the lower segments are to be evaluated simultaneously, you must explicitly put SIM REQT next to the lower segments on the composite callouts. However, PC-DMIS does not currently support SIM REQT for the lower segments. https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...rol_Frames.htm
And goes on to show an example of three (
fully constrained) profiles being sim'd. Which, in itself is redundant, no?...
If it isn't supported, at the least have an error message appear letting the user know the 2nd segment composite
isn't being simultaneously evaluated. In Xact, it displays the DOF's for each segment and you can quickly tell (while doing a simultaneous dimension), multiple second segment DOF's - at least letting you know they're not being evaluating simultaneously. The DOF's seems to be removed by default in Geo Tol which would make it even more misleading that composites are
not being sim'd.
If it isn't supported, at the least have an error message appear letting the user know the 2nd segment composite isn't being simultaneously evaluated. In Xact, it displays the DOF's for each segment and you can quickly tell (while doing a simultaneous dimension), multiple second segment DOF's - at least letting you know they're not being evaluating simultaneously. The DOF's seems be be removed by default in Geo Tol which would make it even more misleading that composites are not being sim'd.
I so agree. I was using simultaneous for a while to evaluate composite positions of different size holes and my boss found in the help file that the simultaneous feature does not evaluate the lower segment. I looked over some of the reports are realized that the numbers were just too good to be true. It would have been nice to have a warning about that. However, that mistake is mostly on me as I did not read the help file thoroughly.
My first thought was, what is the point of simultaneous evaluation if the lower segment is not evaluated simultaneously? I later calmed down when I realized it works well for simultaneous single segment GD&T callouts that are not fully constrained. Also, I read on the forum that if you break up the upper and lower segments and report them separately the math mostly works out right.
