"Default" Math Vs "Legacy"?

​

Thanks for making that point louisd and well said. As you point out, part of this forums key guidelines are...

Show Courtesy and Respect to the Other Members​
Respect the Hexagon Metrology Staff and It's Appointed Moderators​
and Don’t Talk Yourself (or Others) Down​

I would say the OP has violated all three and we would be well with our rights to ban them - it almost seems like they are asking to be banned. ...

When I read the original post I don't see the items you mentioned in your list. There are no forum members mentioned at all. There are no moderators mentioned at all. The third item in your list talks about people and not products which is clear the original poster has issues with some aspects of PC-DMIS. If those are reasons to be banned I don't see how it would fit in this case.

It is clear the original poster made mistakes. Why not just state that and move on.

The one thing the original poster did mention was "...reports coming out with perfect true position..." which is something real that can, and has, happened. In retrospect it is clear that PC-DMIS was applying datum shifts unique for each reported dimension which is both wrong and not understood at that time by most novice users. I know the newer versions of PC-DMIS has improved the reliability of reported dimensions so things like this are less likely to happen if used properly. The Simultaneous Evaluation command should have been the solution to this kind of problem but it only recently was revamped and it didn't work properly in the past so that really wasn't an option back then. I am respectfully pointing this out because I think you are being a little hard on the original poster. Yes, he could have been more tactful.

​

Thanks for making that point louisd and well said. As you point out, part of this forums key guidelines are...

Show Courtesy and Respect to the Other Members​
Respect the Hexagon Metrology Staff and It's Appointed Moderators​
and Don’t Talk Yourself (or Others) Down​

I would say the OP has violated all three and we would be well with our rights to ban them - it almost seems like they are asking to be banned. ...

When I read the original post I don't see the items you mentioned in your list. There are no forum members mentioned at all. There are no moderators mentioned at all. The third item in your list talks about people and not products which is clear the original poster has issues with some aspects of PC-DMIS. If those are reasons to be banned I don't see how it would fit in this case.

It is clear the original poster made mistakes. Why not just state that and move on.

The one thing the original poster did mention was "...reports coming out with perfect true position..." which is something real that can, and has, happened. In retrospect it is clear that PC-DMIS was applying datum shifts unique for each reported dimension which is both wrong and not understood at that time by most novice users. I know the newer versions of PC-DMIS has improved the reliability of reported dimensions so things like this are less likely to happen if used properly. The Simultaneous Evaluation command should have been the solution to this kind of problem but it only recently was revamped and it didn't work properly in the past so that really wasn't an option back then. I am respectfully pointing this out because I think you are being a little hard on the original poster. Yes, he could have been more tactful.