hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 226 subscribers
  • Views 2053 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

XactMeasure versus GeoTol accuracy- comparative study of results

DR LokiZ

Hello all,

Has anyone done a comparative study or has some experience with reported results between Xact and GeoTol?  How similar are the results?

I have a customer drawing which requires ANSI Y14.5M-1982 so the previous programmer did everything with Legacy and alignments using all of the applicable MMC given by the common (mis)understanding of additive bonus from datums.  Our customer has recently rejected some parts due to OOT position of one feature at MMB as internally they have decided to go to ASME Y14.5-2009 without contractual notification.  One of the CAs was to switch everything over to GeoTol and ASME Y14.5-2009/2018 even though not specified anywhere (pick your battles, I lost).  However, according to my Hexagon rep, there have been a couple of library changes and corrections in how PCDmis approaches geometric requirements up to and including a large correction due to a misinterpretation of the standard on their end.  They couldn't give me specifics though.

The information I have gotten is that they are measuring using 2018.2 with XactMeasure and I have 2023.2 SP11 running GeoTol.

Parents
  • 0

    Speaking off the cuff:  XactMeasure was replaced for a reason. 

    If your customer is going to hold "functionally obsolete" software methods over current released revisions of that same software, they better be able to affirm the suspect results are truly bad. 

    As a metrologist for 24 years: when in doubt, hit the granite and affirm nonconformance via conventional or other measurement methods, before rejecting! You don't want to tarnish your personal integrity or reputation.

    Also, if GD&T rev applicability is the subject of the nonconformance, you might want to escalate the disagreement up to your site's big wigs and explain you've got a contract dispute arising.

Reply
  • 0

    Speaking off the cuff:  XactMeasure was replaced for a reason. 

    If your customer is going to hold "functionally obsolete" software methods over current released revisions of that same software, they better be able to affirm the suspect results are truly bad. 

    As a metrologist for 24 years: when in doubt, hit the granite and affirm nonconformance via conventional or other measurement methods, before rejecting! You don't want to tarnish your personal integrity or reputation.

    Also, if GD&T rev applicability is the subject of the nonconformance, you might want to escalate the disagreement up to your site's big wigs and explain you've got a contract dispute arising.

Children
  • 0 in reply to louisd

    I would go a little further...

    Both Xact and GeoTol have the same problem.  They create an internal alignment system that is only applicable to the reported dimension in order to show the features in the best possible light.  In the real world you can't do that because it doesn't work (looking at if from a mating part perspective).

    I like some of the stuff they are trying to do but there are some problems they simply haven't addressed yet.  For example, you can't shift datum features one way to suite on specific set of features then do something completely different for something else.  These shifts only show up in the dimensions and not other things.  Their 'solution' of the simultaneous evaluation dimension addresses some of the issues but not all of them.  This crap didn't even work properly prior to GeoTol which shows how much interest they have in being correct.

    If there is anyone out there relying on this stuff I think you are nuts.  This will surely cause problems....

© 2025 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement