Dobrý den, jaký je prosím rozdíl mezi klasickým a iterativním zarovnáním? Lze iterativní zarovnání použít všude? Rozdíl hodnot mezi klasickým a iteračním zarovnáním je 0,03. Děkuju
I use iterative when dealing with non prismatic features & datum targets. Otherwise it's all classical. Take level 2 class (here in USA we have levels 1-3) they teach iterative, best fit & offset alignments & when to use them. Depends on where you're at also. At my place last time I used iterative was whooping 3 years ago. I'm going back to level 2 class next year for a refresh. Hopefully google translator is good.
I use iterative when dealing with non prismatic features & datum targets. Otherwise it's all classical. Take level 2 class (here in USA we have levels 1-3) they teach iterative, best fit & offset alignments & when to use them. Depends on where you're at also. At my place last time I used iterative was whooping 3 years ago. I'm going back to level 2 class next year for a refresh. Hopefully google translator is good.
Thank you for answer. I'm from Czech Republic. I'm a beginner and have learned on Calypso, so it's natural for me to use classic alignment on a steel form. But a colleague who has been working with PC-DMIS for a long time only uses iterative for everything (prismatic and non-prismatic parts) and I disagree with him. I will definitely request training from my employer. Have a nice day
One case that classical wouldn't work with prismatic features is when datums that alignment is based on are badly out of form. But if you want to compensate for this using iterative then you are basically changing the designer intent. It all depends on what the print says.
