Excessive crashes with PCDmis

everything mentioned above is good stuff. In addition, each user ID that logs into Windows on that PC will need to have these registry keys and folders (at bottom) set to administrative and read/write permissions.

I do not think your problems are resource related.  Unless you are opening large (>100mb) *.CAD routines I highly doubt additional RAM (or upgrading graphics card) will net any gain whatsoever.

I also advise if you are using a network folder to store any PCDMIS files (PRG's, PRB's, etc) don't.  Copy them locally to that machine's hard drive and set them as read only if you need configuration management sustained.

Per the Hexagon support page, the following is what they say is required:
“If I do not have local admin access can I still run PC-DMIS?
May 25, 2018•Knowledge
Details
Yes- if the end user is denied local admin access on their PC to run PC-DMIS, then ask IT to make the following changes to the application's install folders and registry branches below.

Grant the user's account full permissions on all of our Hexagon application folders here:

• C:\Program Files\Hexagon (64-bit installs)
• C:\ProgramData\Hexagon

In the registry you should also explicitly give the same user full permissions to the following branches:

• HCU\Software\Hexagon
• HKLM\Software\Hexagon
• HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Hexagon
• HU\.DEFAULT\Software\Hexagon

louisd said:

In the registry you should also explicitly give the same user full permissions to the following branches:

• HCU\Software\Hexagon
• HKLM\Software\Hexagon
• HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Hexagon
• HU\.DEFAULT\Software\Hexagon

This only applies to older versions (before 2022 I think).  Settings are now stored in .json format in the following folder locations...

C:\ProgramData\Hexagon\PC-DMIS\version

C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Hexagon\PC-DMIS\version

.

Where username is the Windows user account name and version is the PC-DMIS version (e.g. 2024.2)

2018 R2 SP14

2019 R1 SP11

2020 R1 SP15

2021.1 SP11

2022.2 SP7

2023.1 SP9

2023.2 SP12

Looks like 2022 is the gold standard with only 7 service packs needed. 

Hexagon uses a group of Beta testers called "customers" to test their software. 

The biggest thing that Hexagon does that is just plain wrong on so many levels is that they don't allow you to download a service pack for a product you already purchased unless you maintain an SMA. If I purchase ANY other software the SP's and support are provided for the product I purchased. This is type of behavior that drives people to other products. 

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens in the next few years once some other companies hammer down on the CMM integrations for their software. 

Just yesterday I was working on a part, at about 99% completion I realized that I put the secondary alignment feature on the opposite side of the part.... and all that was required to correct the error was two mouse clicks. No muss, no fuss, no "do you wish to update the nominals for literally everything and break the rest of the program? And at the same time over-write all the hand key-ed nominals cuz my drawings are trash here" 
Maybe someday... 

Here's how the cycle goes...

1) Introduce "new" version with "additions & enhancements". You need to keep that SMA gravy train going so you need to release something each year to appear to be making the software better in some way

2) Break things that are core functionality and have worked in that past while adding things that aren't necessary for 99.99% of people in metrology

3) Scramble to try and fix all those problems when people complain or just release another version .X and say use this... it's better

And so on, and so on... 

Usually the "solution" proposed is to disable this or do it this other way that's convoluted and wasted time, or you just don't know how to use the software right. Give me a break. The software crashes more than any software I've ever used, and that's saying a lot. PC-DMIS has become the perpetual Windows ME. 

I've been on and off this User board or it's earlier versions for more than 20 yrs. I've been reading Matt's posts for years. (God bless you, Matt!) This isn't something new that I don't understand. This is a bad way to do business, IMO. 

The thing I find fascinating is that people will defend this software and get bent out of shape if you knock it. It's like Stockholm Syndrome. 

Oh well. I'm just 1 person. C'est la vie

I think it is pretty clear they don't test their software properly.  They probably run internal, offline, tests but this is not enough.

The cost is pretty steep.  They should do better.

I found version 3.7 has a lot of memory or resource leaks.  When I work on a machine running 3.7 I need to keep this in mind that it will shut down after a specific number of features are executed.  I doubt most users would see this but since I do things a bit differently it really stands out.  Version 3.7 might be the worst.

everyone else (except you) have said V3.7 MR3 (not the earlier releases) is in the top 3 or 4 releases ever made.

recently had a program for a part with 2116 features as well as dimensions for each one as well as most of them having 2D distance dimensions between them for a roughly 200 page report.  not a bit of problems with 'memory leaks'.  the only time the memory leaks are an issue is when you go through multiple programs (open, close, open, close, open, close) really fast.  the memory leak showed up by making the edit window a color other than what it should be (usually red or green, sometimes black), it would be that color while in the process of opening, once open it would go back to normal, when that happened, close Pcdmis and reopen it, problem solved for a long time.

Maybe this is very hard to believe, but the state of the software has become much better compared to the older releases. More stable, the PRG-cannibalism has pretty much stopped (PC-DMIS eating it's own programs), the moody bugs are very far in between... With that said, there are still some things that is the polar opposite to other softwares user interfaces and some other quirks. I for one, would not go back if I got to choose.

Matthew D. Hoedeman Version 3.7 was definitely one of the better versions and for almost all users this would be true.  In my case I noticed issues when using VB in this particular version of PC-DMIS.  It was so bad I knew that after running a specific number of measurements that I had to close the software otherwise it would be closed for me.  I have only seen this problem with version 3.7 (nothing newer or older had the same issues).  Most users are not using VB for regular part programs so they would never run into this.  I just wanted to clarify what I was talking about earlier.

Y'all need to imply good intent. Hexagon has no motivation to intentionally mess stuff up.  Improvement and advancement is just like any other engineering profession: iterative.  The software is leaps and bounds more advanced and stable than v3.7.

I agree that their product releases should be renamed beta versions, and until bug reports are extinguished, the version should not be named a "release".  tomato/potato.  They are still working their butts off to stay market dominant and the most adaptable user-friendly software to program with. 

Collapse-o has way more functional bugs, deficiencies and hoops to go through for many things PCDMIS just inherently tackles with less than 3 mouse clicks.  I loathe all their measurement strategy popup menu's you have to go 3 pop-ups deep, before actually being able to modify hit locations. 

MCOSMOS?  yeah its terrible to program on the fly. One exe software for programming, another exe software to open to execute. you can't execute and make any program changes without having to exit the routine and open the other sw package!

give them a break, it's hard for any organization to both simultaneously innovate and sustain a 30 year old user interface and programming methodology.

Thank you louisd , I’ve so far been resisting the urge to respond to the many negative comments as I don’t have the time to get drawn into a heated discussion but I think you summed things up quite well. One thing I would like to add is how unhelpful it is when people who, by their own admission, “never use” a particular feature or are not even running a current version offer comment on things they have no experience of using.  I have no objection to people trying to be helpful but, if you don’t know how something works, don’t try to guess.  It just adds to the confusion and misinformation that's already far to prevalent.

Thank you louisd , I’ve so far been resisting the urge to respond to the many negative comments as I don’t have the time to get drawn into a heated discussion but I think you summed things up quite well. One thing I would like to add is how unhelpful it is when people who, by their own admission, “never use” a particular feature or are not even running a current version offer comment on things they have no experience of using.  I have no objection to people trying to be helpful but, if you don’t know how something works, don’t try to guess.  It just adds to the confusion and misinformation that's already far to prevalent.