hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 221 subscribers
  • Views 484 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Xact Measure problem

slesholdofthreep
Has anyone had problems with Xact Measure TP dims? I have various parts with MMC on the DF as well as the Datums. As may be expected the DF and the datums all have different size tolerances. When setting up the dimension I tolerance them correctly, but once created the datum tolerances default to the DF tolerance. I have assigned variables for tolerances with little success. In fact I can type in the correct tolerance right into the dimension in the edit window and.. pfft... it reverts back to the DF tol. I am attempting to use this "improved" method because the hexagoon's say that legacy TP dims don't account for MMC on the datums correctly. WTF!

I am running V4.2mr2, but I have seen this in 4.1 and 4.2mr1.
Parents
  • I have done this many times and gotten good results.

    I suggest you evaluate your TP first with NO VC on your datums. Make sure you have the correct bonus. I have had instances in the past where PC-DMIS took a ID for an OD and that can cause bad bonusses to happen. Also, if your size is outside the tolerance zone, it will revert to RFS. The bonus will NOT be taken into effect, because the feature is out anyway.

    If that all looks good, add material conditions to your datums. Depending on how the datums are located, this can result in HUGE datum shifts. Basically, when virtual conditions exist on your datums, the TP call changes into a go/no go gauge. The actual numbers don't matter that much any more. The same goes here as I said earlier: if your feature is out of size, PC-DMIS reverts to RFS, including on the datums.

    I have tried this many times now and I think they are doing it right. But this is extremely difficult math and it may be that under certain circumstances, it does not work right. If you become convinced it does not work, call tech support. I have gotten great help on this topic from them.

    Also, when you work with VC's on datums, don't forget to look at simultaneous requirements (see ASME standard). PC-DMIS allows you to account for that too.


    Jan.
Reply
  • I have done this many times and gotten good results.

    I suggest you evaluate your TP first with NO VC on your datums. Make sure you have the correct bonus. I have had instances in the past where PC-DMIS took a ID for an OD and that can cause bad bonusses to happen. Also, if your size is outside the tolerance zone, it will revert to RFS. The bonus will NOT be taken into effect, because the feature is out anyway.

    If that all looks good, add material conditions to your datums. Depending on how the datums are located, this can result in HUGE datum shifts. Basically, when virtual conditions exist on your datums, the TP call changes into a go/no go gauge. The actual numbers don't matter that much any more. The same goes here as I said earlier: if your feature is out of size, PC-DMIS reverts to RFS, including on the datums.

    I have tried this many times now and I think they are doing it right. But this is extremely difficult math and it may be that under certain circumstances, it does not work right. If you become convinced it does not work, call tech support. I have gotten great help on this topic from them.

    Also, when you work with VC's on datums, don't forget to look at simultaneous requirements (see ASME standard). PC-DMIS allows you to account for that too.


    Jan.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement