I have 2 planes, PL1 is datum A (primary using minimax), and PL2 constructed from 7 basic scan/circle/plane. (least square, but it shouldn't change anything !)
Using geotol, it gives 7,1 µm
using legacy, it gives 35,1 µm
using assignments (ASSIGN/V1=DOT(PL2.HIT[1..PL2.NUMHITS].XYZ-PL1.XYZ,PL1.IJK) , then ASSIGN/V2=MAX(V1)-MIN(V1)), it gives 36,1 µm.
Then, constructing 7 planes from scans and construct a plane from their centroids, it gives about 8 µm (so I'm wondering if geotol uses them to calculate instead of hits ?)
I stand corrected, the undocumented enhancement is a bit more extensive than I realized. Looks like when using tangental planes, the constructed planes work as described in help files, but when asking software for dimensions, the reported values don't jive. Examples are purely test data, datum A being perfect, while the test plane is intentionally set to deliver a 1mm parallelism (although being a square that can be tilted equally 2 ways the computer should not have been able to construct single calculations). Note the ijk values of constructed plane types and reported parallelisms. (code and report to follow)...
Shoot, can't attach picture in reply to a reply. FCF reported values do match legacy reported values, but why is the software returning zero for tangental planes that clearly have imperfect "k" vectors?
So, started using [..] in my programs and it went flawlessly during creation. I had to revisit one of these programs today and PC-DMIS (2023.1 SP1) complained that the GeoTol evaluations for these features where I used the [..] trick didn't have any measured data:
The report also showed evaluations in black with ERROR for all these evaluations.
It started working as soon as I changed one of them to the standard syntax .HIT[1..FEATURENAME.NUMHITS] again.
If I changed back to [..] the error message did not show up and all looked as expected. But, if I loaded the program up with the [..] syntax, it would display this error.
neil.challinor - is this something you can verify? Is the [..] too new for usage perhaps?