Offset Plane Issues

Normally when you execute the routine it will revert to be the same. I see no reason to offset a plane with 0 offset, maybe the programmer was testing and is left over code that has been forgotten there?

the offset value might have changed to zero by mistake
is the output as required?

^ I've had offset values reset to 0 when I F9 them in a later version than what the program was saved as.

I believe there's another problem, because the actual centroid of FRAK doesn't match with hits measured values, but dim D45 is right...

Thanks for the thoughts, all.
jigars, constadin and Sora5, the offset plane is used just as I would have used the measured plane if it were me, that is it is dimensioned as if it were. Thanks Sora5 for the tip that it could revert but I don't think that was what happened here. Don't worry too much about that part of it, I would still like to find out the purpose but I'm not going to worry too much about it I guess.

JEFMAN, yes this is my big concern. It seems to actually BE offset by 0 according to the coordinates and vectors (and graphically) but the dimensions say otherwise. I have executed the dimensions and created new identical dimensions and get the same result.

Also I just noticed the word "cartesian" in the offset plane is a different color. Does anyone know why this is? I'm not sure if that's from pasting here or if it is in the actual measurement routine, and I'm just leaving for the day so that mystery will have to wait...

In theory, you could use an offset of 0, or a generic plane to "flatten" any flatness variation for the measured plane... but FRAK is only 3 hits (a 3pt plane will not capture any flatness, ever), so it makes absolutely zero sense.

So I too am confused as to the following:
1 Why the two dims would produce different X axis values and
2 Why someone would do this intentionally in the routine

In theory, you could use an offset of 0, or a generic plane to "flatten" any flatness variation for the measured plane... but FRAK is only 3 hits (a 3pt plane will not capture any flatness, ever), so it makes absolutely zero sense.

So I too am confused as to the following:
1 Why the two dims would produce different X axis values and
2 Why someone would do this intentionally in the routine

D45 x was from 3 hit points X value: average of 0.264 0.239 and 0.269
D46 x from the plane

Yes.
If offset plane OUTPLN is an offset of zero, and references FRAK, it should in theory have the same resultant dimensional value.
For D45 and D46 to have differing results, is alarming.

--You are 100% confident that you have executed this routine in its entirety to produce the results pictured (not CTL+e or CTL+u partial executions)?

louisd, no I am not certain this was executed from the start, in fact the screenshot I posted is from the program as last saved, theoretically in 2017. But I did ctrl-e the constructed plane, ctl-l the constructed plane and dimensions (those dimensions were inserted by me anyway, originally the dim for OUTPLN appears later) and even created another offset 0 plane and dimensioned it, all with the same results shown.

I am interested in how running in its entirety can affect these results though, if you can explain. I would think once the first plane is measured then running the constructed plane onward should be sufficient. Apparently not though, or at least maybe not, because when I ran the program (which admittedly had changes but not to these features) the results made sense:



Also for anyone wondering I think the text color change must've been a result of the screenshot process, the text color is all the same within the progra (plus it didn't happen this time.)

TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A RESOLUTION. I am still very curious about this result and how it may be related to a full vs. partial execution, or any other possible reason. And thank you everyone for the help!​

That, to me, is very clearly a resolution.

First, why would one ever measure a plane and then construct an offset plane with an offset of zero?

--We don't know for sure, but it's standard practice if one wants to OMIT form/flatness variation from the judged feature. It's also (apparently) a glitch in revisions that offset values shift to zero.

Second, if one did this, shouldn't dimensions referencing those planes give the same results? that is, the planes should be interchangeable?

FRAK and OUTPLN measured resultant values now match, as they should after executing the routine entirely. The delta between values was clearly a result of the last execution being a partial, omitting the updating of (last) MEASured ACTUAL values for one of the two planes.

pleas elaborate on why you'd think it isn't resolved?