"Default" Math Vs "Legacy"?

I'm trying to follow this conversation to the best of my ability. Personally I tend to use legacy. Part of that reason is because of past issues with Xact measure, part of it is the varying opinions on its accuracy, and part of it is not having the depth of knowledge necessary to understand what it's doing exactly, excuse the pun. It can make a complicated alignment structure easy, and save time, so I do use it on occasion, but it's extremely rare. I'll usually provide both methods, and label one as a reference (usually Xact measure), only so operators don't get confused as to which one to base their moves from.

I have to be honest here for the sake of truth. I almost strictly use legacy myself. Probably for the same reasons as most other people (like you) that like to use legacy. I'm used to it, I'm knowledgeable enough to build alignments correct to the standard (with the obvious complicated caveat), and it hasn't changed much in years. I know it's solid.
The times that I will use GeoTol are when I have Datum bonus. I know that you can technically do this in legacy also, but it isn't done correctly and GeoTol/Xact measure gave much more information to tell you how the deviation is zero, when legacy doesn't. This information in critical to test if the code is working properly. If there is Datum bonus and simultaneous requirement applies, I do not give Datum bonus and revert to legacy because I have had less than ideal results from this in the past with Xact, and with testing GeoTol I'm unsure if the results are better. My theory is, if you have 10 different dimensions requiring simultaneous evaluation, and you need that bonus to pass the part, then there is a risk of failure/rejection anyways. Never had an issue.
I do report Datum bonus using GeoTol as non-reference and a copy of that dimension in legacy without bonus as reference so the machinists know what to move and so the Customer can see the difference. This is necessary.
I've tested a few different callouts in legacy and geotol with Koten Smartprofile software (which touts themselves as being certified to the standard somehow) and depending on the callout, legacy can get pretty close. Close enough that I'm not too concerned with moving from legacy completely. But I got much much closer results with Geotol when Datum bonus was applied.
This all rides on us trusting any software we use, including PC DMIS and legacy.

But, I'm sure we can all agree that bonus modifiers on threaded holes are useless.

What was the debacle?

I hope the Idea Center voting will bring datum shift back on reports... Clueless customers that messes things up for the rest of us.

Despite their claim that changes are "USER DRIVEN", the changes are actually driven by the $$$$ of the big purchasers. One of the BIG CUSTOMERS (their words, NOT mine!) wanted a 3rd party 'crash report technology' embedded into Pcdmis. This destroyed the functionality of the auto feature VECTOR POINT. THEY KNEW it did this, yet released the MR without ANY warning anywhere to any customers about this problem. I think that the VECTOR POINT is the most commonly used auto feature (my opinion only) yet they knew they screwed it up, and still released the FUBAR MR anyway because a "BIG CUSTOMER" wanted it.

Ive lost my mind, and my inspection stamp. i left them both on my desk when i clocked out?

Dude, Cumofogabriel... Take a chill pill.
This is a COMMUNITY forum. The intent here is to ask for help, with respect, and a community of peers will offer logical productive no-drama solutions.

--Yes some folks from Hexagon are also on here, but with the attitude you are putting forth....
This niche industry seems to be very capable of red-flagging inappropriate unprofessional, or simply non-productive behaviors of people.
it's just a matter of time if you keep this demeanor. Not a threat, but a word of caution.

Respectfully, in my experience, the only way to overcome a fear of something, is to educate myself on it more... Hexagon has some courses on geo tol, and might have presentations for free to offer as well regarding how geo tol works, and aligns with latest rev of ASME y14.5.

Yeah, or maybe just don't put the MMB modifier on the datum?

Is someone pointing a gun at your head making you put that on there?

You want a button to disable the datum shift modifier you put in the CMM program? Unless this is model based definition and is somehow forcing the use of the modifier (which I'm pretty sure PcDmis doesn't do), just don't put it on when you create the data output.

I never use boundary modifies on datums. If we can't make the part right without datum shift (which should be ONE shift moving ALL your outputs not a moving shift feature to feature) they can make the part again.

Hell, I don't even give the machinists MMC, with the singular exception of continuous feature (position .000 at MMC).

I'm not getting into a pissing match with a customer over bonus tolerance. If we make the part with the reduced tolerance of taking the bonuses off, the customer will always find the part in print. Even if I ship it at a position of .0100 out of a .0100 requirement.

I'm confused on where you are going with this.

I also prefer legacy, but not for the reasons given here.

Why does this career field produce such an overabundance of arrogant self-righteous die-hards? The Dunning-Kruger effect lives on.

Yeah, I use Vector Points religiously. I wouldn't be happy if those were broken..