hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 297 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Auto Cone extracted from a COP

Scott Staral @ WAFCO
We have Romer arm here with an RS3 laser on it.

I am having issues with the auto cone feature. I want to do an auto cone and then generate a circle from the auto cone, either by intersecting with an existing plane or by using the cone feature under construct a circle and create a circle at a given height.

If I take individual auto points and construct a cone, I get the results that I expect. I have been doing it this way for a couple of years now. Recently I tried to incorporate the auto cone feature into my programs and I can not get smart as to what is going on with this command.

Ex. Part I am currently working on, if I construct a cone from individual points and intersect that cone with a plane or construct a cone at a given height I get the result that I am looking for....in this case a circle with a diameter of 7.194"( verified with a caliper ). Now if I extract the same cone via the auto cone command and intersect this new cone with the same plane as above, I get a result of 7.394" and if I construct a cone at a given height( same height as the above mentioned plane ) I get a result of 6.560"

Has anyone else experienced weird result like this?

I have contacted tech support twice on this subject and have yet to get any kind of straight answer on this?
Parents
  • You are losing me now Andersi. Clicking on the model to define the auto cone has nothing to do with my constructed cone???? Also, I'm not using vector points. I'm using auto surface points. The auto vector point has always been grayed out. I guess I don't know what the difference is between a vector point and a surface point or what the difference is between BF and BFRE. Isn't BFRE more to do with hard probed hits rather then surface points pulled from a laser scan?

    I think we are drifting away from my original question of why does the auto cone feature give me such screwed up results. It shouldn't matter if I am using a constructed cone, or an auto cone. There may be different inputs, but the math should still be the same. I understand that if I construct a cone from a series of points, there is no real start end and stop end like the auto cone, it uses the vertex, but the basic math should still be the same, correct? it shouldn't matter which end of the model I click on, correct?

    I measure aluminum castings, I run into a lot of ID and OD measurements. Since I am measuring castings, there is draft( cones ) it would be nice if I could make use of the auto cone feature.

Reply
  • You are losing me now Andersi. Clicking on the model to define the auto cone has nothing to do with my constructed cone???? Also, I'm not using vector points. I'm using auto surface points. The auto vector point has always been grayed out. I guess I don't know what the difference is between a vector point and a surface point or what the difference is between BF and BFRE. Isn't BFRE more to do with hard probed hits rather then surface points pulled from a laser scan?

    I think we are drifting away from my original question of why does the auto cone feature give me such screwed up results. It shouldn't matter if I am using a constructed cone, or an auto cone. There may be different inputs, but the math should still be the same. I understand that if I construct a cone from a series of points, there is no real start end and stop end like the auto cone, it uses the vertex, but the basic math should still be the same, correct? it shouldn't matter which end of the model I click on, correct?

    I measure aluminum castings, I run into a lot of ID and OD measurements. Since I am measuring castings, there is draft( cones ) it would be nice if I could make use of the auto cone feature.

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