hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 221 subscribers
  • Views 23 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Offline Program Giving Measured Values

S_Cliff
I have a program to this point has been 100% offline, but if I execute it, it's measuring values other than nominal. When I reset measured values to nominal all features snap to where they should be. Then I execute it and they go right back to how they were. When things first went bad, I ran a collision detection and realized I was going to shank out on an auto plane. So I changed where the hits were being taken. The plane was an alignment feature in an iterative alignment. After I made my changes, I answered no to all the questions since I didn't change the alignment only where it hit. After that all my features went wacky. I tried executing the program to fix it. I changed my iterative alignment to a normal alignment, which helped some but not entirely.

Do you think once I run it online that will fix things or should I scrap the program and try again?

Edit: I went into my scans and all my hits were messed up. I fixed those and things look right again.
Parents
  • I never scrap programs. I've never seen a program bad enough that required a full re-write. Almost everything can be fixed with editing.
    That being said, saying No to the alignment prompt is a bad idea unless your intent is to have features move. I've also never had a need for an iterative alignment. Not yet anyways, but if you don't NEED iterative, then you probably shouldn't use it. I also don't use auto planes or lines due to their limitations.
    All that being said, running the program offline isn't always a 100% fix. If i see some theo/measured value differences in a program, i take my time and re-snap all my features to cad and hit "test" which essentually executes the feature inside the feature window. This includes re-clicking the CAD for auto planes/lines/cylinders/circles to ensure they are not off slightly. Eventually you will see where the issue lies. Trace back to where the measured values start to change if you want to save time, but I recommend starting at the beginning and snapping everything to CAD. This includes opening all constructed features and hitting "create" to update the feature and opening alignments and hitting "OK" to force then to update. Most will find this to be over-kill, there are other ways to go about it, but it's effective.
Reply
  • I never scrap programs. I've never seen a program bad enough that required a full re-write. Almost everything can be fixed with editing.
    That being said, saying No to the alignment prompt is a bad idea unless your intent is to have features move. I've also never had a need for an iterative alignment. Not yet anyways, but if you don't NEED iterative, then you probably shouldn't use it. I also don't use auto planes or lines due to their limitations.
    All that being said, running the program offline isn't always a 100% fix. If i see some theo/measured value differences in a program, i take my time and re-snap all my features to cad and hit "test" which essentually executes the feature inside the feature window. This includes re-clicking the CAD for auto planes/lines/cylinders/circles to ensure they are not off slightly. Eventually you will see where the issue lies. Trace back to where the measured values start to change if you want to save time, but I recommend starting at the beginning and snapping everything to CAD. This includes opening all constructed features and hitting "create" to update the feature and opening alignments and hitting "OK" to force then to update. Most will find this to be over-kill, there are other ways to go about it, but it's effective.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement