hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 221 subscribers
  • Views 603 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.
  • So anyone have any thoughts on the pugnacious behavior of the datum tolerances?

    Is this related?

    I have found that when reporting TP with "Fit to Datums" ON, I cannot
    change some things (DF nominals, for one). Once I turn it OFF, changes
    can be made and applied.

    The selection "Datum Reference Frame" or "Current Alignment" also has
    some effect on the ability to make edits.

    We do not have parts that use BF on Datums, however. No help there - Disappointed
  • Sorry man, it works for me. But that is in 4.3. Maybe try it out? PM me.
  • Guys,

    I think you just taught me something. But, can you delve into the subject a little more?

    Let me start by regurgitating what I think I have just read in ASME y14.5 1994. If I have 6 holes that have a True Position of...

    6X DIA 6mm +0.3 -0.00
    |TP|DIA|0.1M|A|B|C|

    ...I should report this as a pattern? So really I would only have 1 statistic? Interesting, because I have been taught to report these all separately.

    Your example does NOT have VC on the datums. So you will not have datum shift. So it does not matter how you evaluate. You can do them individually, or a pattern (giving you 1 number; I think it ought to coincide with the worst one).

    The problem comes in when you have VC on your B and/or C datum. Now you allow datum shift. I think that if you evaluate as a pattern you will get a different result than if you evalate based on simultanuous requirements.

    Never tried that though..... This would be a good one for Don.


    Jan.
  • Is this related?

    I have found that when reporting TP with "Fit to Datums" ON, I cannot
    change some things (DF nominals, for one). Once I turn it OFF, changes
    can be made and applied.

    The selection "Datum Reference Frame" or "Current Alignment" also has
    some effect on the ability to make edits.

    We do not have parts that use BF on Datums, however. No help there - Disappointed

    I have not found any difference it its behavior regardless of FIT TO DATUMS ON or OFF nor have I found any difference between output to DRF or CURRENT ALIGNMENT.

    Jan, James, is my understanding correct that if there are VCs on the datums FIT TO DATUMS must be on?

    Another issue I had all but forgotten about. Sometimes the DF tolerance will change on its own to an impossible number such as +995412121231232111 -993452112111111111.
  • I have not found any difference it its behavior regardless of FIT TO DATUMS ON or OFF nor have I found any difference between output to DRF or CURRENT ALIGNMENT.

    Jan, James, is my understanding correct that if there are VCs on the datums FIT TO DATUMS must be on?

    Another issue I had all but forgotten about. Sometimes the DF tolerance will change on its own to an impossible number such as +995412121231232111 -993452112111111111.
    I am using 4.3 but, I just got done reviewing the concepts brought up both by Sleth and Jan and during this little review, I used the HEXAGON DEMO BLOCK.

    Plane, line, circle alignment. Circle in the center, line on the front and a plane on the top.

    I then measured the 4 holes surrounding the center hole. I then reported the holes using Legacy dimensioning without modifiers. I then reported the holes using Legacy dimensioning using modifiers for the feature and the origin.

    Then I reported the holes using Xactmeasure; each hole individually (no modifiers).

    Then I reported the holes using Xactmeasure as a group (no modifiers).

    Then I reported the holes using Xactmeasure as a group using modifiers.

    And lastly, I reported the holes using Xactmeasure as a group with modifiers, and "fit to datums" turned on.

    They all seem to work.

    Please see attachment.

    Sorry for attachment
  • I have not found any difference it its behavior regardless of FIT TO DATUMS ON or OFF nor have I found any difference between output to DRF or CURRENT ALIGNMENT.

    Jan, James, is my understanding correct that if there are VCs on the datums FIT TO DATUMS must be on?

    Another issue I had all but forgotten about. Sometimes the DF tolerance will change on its own to an impossible number such as +995412121231232111 -993452112111111111.

    Please show attachmentSmiley
    I thought it went, got distracted and hit send. No attachment; too large, had to put it at my box.net account, Sorry
  • Having server issues I think. I can't upload to anywhere.
  • I obviously haven't used our FTP site that much. I didn't know it provided a link to the file as well as emailing it to the recipient. Take a look if you like.

    http://www.lpftp.leggett.com/uploads/38845461720080327131207/hexagon%20demo%204%20hole%20example.zip

    Here is the bulk of what I wrote regarding this attachment...

    I am using 4.3 but, I just got done reviewing the concepts brought up both by Sleth and Jan and during this little review, I used the HEXAGON DEMO BLOCK.

    Plane, line, circle alignment. Circle in the center, line on the front and a plane on the top.

    I then measured the 4 holes surrounding the center hole. I then reported the holes using Legacy dimensioning without modifiers. I then reported the holes using Legacy dimensioning using modifiers for the feature and the origin.

    Then I reported the holes using Xactmeasure; each hole individually (no modifiers).

    Then I reported the holes using Xactmeasure as a group (no modifiers).

    Then I reported the holes using Xactmeasure as a group using modifiers.

    And lastly, I reported the holes using Xactmeasure as a group with modifiers, and "fit to datums" turned on.

    They all seem to work.

    Please see attachment.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement