Weird behavior of CMM. PCdmis runs ok, Inspect not

I made a small video displaying this issue. The second feature fails in inspect while in pcdmis completes successfully. Btw this is the program:

Link of the video here: https://youtu.be/zp6SKitcOjk?si=VoNBL9Q35-ZoTeTZ

Please someone explain why this happens to me.

Check PLN2's clearance moves. In the Inspect version the CMM starts with the search distance almost immediately, while in PC-DMIS it looks fine.
I don't use Inspect, but maybe Inspect doesn't like variables (you have them in PLN2)?

Thanks for the reply!

Inspect to the best of my knowledge is just a UI / operator Portal for PC-Dmis. In fact PC-Dmis is still executing the program so there should be no difference in execution. In fact there is only 1 program that is executed in PC-Dmis in both cases but in the later case, it is through Inspect. 

Finally I can see avoidance move set to "NO" so there is no variable there and the only calculation through variable is with the spacing of the plane (in which I cannot spot any issue).

Going off of what vpt.se said, it does appear that after your alignment in Inspect it does an extra move. It looks like an avoidance move, or a move point. I don't see how or why it would be doing this based on the code above. I know avoidance move is set to no, but can you try changing the value to 0?

Well the program is validated and I am unable to touch it without going over assessment and possible revalidation that can take weeks. From my point of view I see the points having shifted on X axis by a good 7-10mm or so when using inspect. The sequence goes like... read manual alignment, take the circle to set Y and Z values but while using Pcdmis the X value retains to the manual alignment, in Inspect the a shift is happening. For me to most important thing is understanding why Inspect behaves like this (in 2 different similar machines) while I am pretty sure, pcdmis is still the main program doing the calculations and dictates movement.   

Are you using the "Pallet" option in Inspect to run multiple parts?  Also, do you have Inspect set to make a local copy of the routine before executing or are you running the main "master" routine?

I don't have the pallet option no. Also I am executing directly the master routine without creating a copy.

We just use inspect as the simplest tool there is for an operator to execute programs. No bar codes used, no pallet, nothing. Pick the folder execute the program, only this.

You NEED to justify somehow, that clicking the checkbox within inspect settings that enables the software to function properly (by allowing it to run with a copy) is an integral and necessary part of making Inspect pass the validation protocol.  Add a deviation to your change request if you must but inspect ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to run with read/write access.   The software engineers from Hexagon added that checkbox for this precise reason.

You could even use Hexagon service desk to your advantage here, if you need affirmation (for your validation protocol deviation) of how this toggle functions and its intent to enable read-only files to work within Inspect... reach out to the service desk and let them know you need a written memo explaining the function and how it is necessary.

I am not sure why this is an option then if it needs to be there is the first place. In any case we have been using Inspect for many different codes for close to a year now in 10 machines with no issue with our current settings. Not sure why this is the sole case of such behavior. I will anyhow test by using the run as copy just to see if it will improve anything. Thanks

Neil Challinor Do you think making a local copy will resolve the issue? Have you seen this in the past or even reported to you guys?

Since you say your program is validated and you are not allowed to modify it, you should definitely have Inspect set to make a local copy.  This guarantees that Inspect always takes the original, (validated) routine and copies it locally before executing.  Data would only ever be saved to that local copy which is discarded after execution.

Running the master routine should behave exactly the same was as running a copy but the copy gives you extra protection.  It is very easy for an operator to accidentally add unwanted move points (by accidently pressing the teach button on the jogbox for example).  This would easily go unnoticed when running through Inspect because PC-DMIS is hidden.  Allowing Inspect to always run a local copy means that changes - accidental or otherwise - would never be saved to your validated maser routine.

Since you say your program is validated and you are not allowed to modify it, you should definitely have Inspect set to make a local copy.  This guarantees that Inspect always takes the original, (validated) routine and copies it locally before executing.  Data would only ever be saved to that local copy which is discarded after execution.

Running the master routine should behave exactly the same was as running a copy but the copy gives you extra protection.  It is very easy for an operator to accidentally add unwanted move points (by accidently pressing the teach button on the jogbox for example).  This would easily go unnoticed when running through Inspect because PC-DMIS is hidden.  Allowing Inspect to always run a local copy means that changes - accidental or otherwise - would never be saved to your validated maser routine.

Well the programs are stored in a read only network folder on a daily backup routine. Remotes are not really used by production and protected modes are enabled in PCDMIS. Also I doubt it is possible to modify anything and save the change while using Inspect. In any case, I need our IT support in order to change settings in Inspect to try with the local copy execution (at this point I highly doubt this will fix anything). 

Brainstorming here... Is it possible that inspect sees the X axis in inches instead of mm and thus behaves weird in this case only? At this point I am totally lost and I stat to worry that other validated programs will follow the same behavior ultimately making it a huge risk for NCs.

If you want to resolve it, Get IT to implement the checkbox change.  Fill out a protocol deviation (or whatever bureaucratic crap you need to jump through) to justify the change.

PCDMIS, going back to its origins, has ALWAYS had issues with file usage when it is not locally stored on the PC that is controlling the system.

Thanks, I will do the necessary and report back