hexagon logo

Alignment from FCF Datum Shift



I think what vpt (and me) were hoping for was a way to create an alignment that uses the Xact fit shift. There are all sorts of applications for this. Using the available options in best-fit alignment is not the same, because they do not attempt to fit within a tolerance zone.

A few years old but I haven't found anything using search.

SPH1       =GENERIC/SPHERE,DEPENDENT,CARTESIAN,OUT,$
            NOM/XYZ,<0,0,0>,$
            MEAS/XYZ,<0,0,0>,$
            NOM/IJK,<0,0,1>,$
            MEAS/IJK,<0,0,1>,$
            DIAMETER/1,1.1
DIM LOC1= LOCATION OF SPHERE SPH1
AX    NOMINAL       +TOL       -TOL       MEAS        DEV     OUTTOL
D       1.0000     0.2500    -0.2500     1.1000     0.1000     0.0000 ------#--
END OF DIMENSION LOC1
            DATDEF/FEATURE=SPH1,A
            DISPLAYPRECISION/6
FCFLOC1 =POSITION : CIR152_1,CIR152_2,CIR152_3,...
            FEATCTRLFRAME/SHOWNOMS=NO,SHOWPARAMS=NO,SHOWEXPANDED=NO
              SIZE TOLERANCES/33,DIAMETER,0.375,0.005,-0.005
              PRIMARY DIMENSION/POSITION,DIAMETER,0.01,MMC,A,MMC,,
              NOTE/FCFLOC1
            FEATURES/CIR152_1,CIR152_2,CIR152_3,CIR152_4,CIR152_5,
                                CIR152_6,CIR152_7,CIR152_8,CIR152_9,CIR152_10,
                                CIR152_11,CIR152_12,CIR152_13,CIR152_14,
                                CIR152_15,CIR152_16,CIR152_17,CIR152_18,
                                CIR152_19,CIR152_20,CIR152_21,CIR152_22,
                                CIR152_23,CIR152_24,CIR152_25,CIR152_26,
                                CIR152_27,CIR152_28,CIR152_29,CIR152_30,
                                CIR152_31,CIR152_32,CIR152_33,,
            ASSIGN/V1=GETTEXT("DRF_SHIFTX",1,{FCFLOC1})
            ASSIGN/V2=GETTEXT("DRF_SHIFTY",1,{FCFLOC1})
            ASSIGN/V3=GETTEXT("DRF_SHIFTZ",1,{FCFLOC1})
            ASSIGN/V4=GETTEXT("DRF_ROTATIONX",1,{FCFLOC1})*-1
            ASSIGN/V5=GETTEXT("DRF_ROTATIONY",1,{FCFLOC1})*-1
            ASSIGN/V6=GETTEXT("DRF_ROTATIONZ",1,{FCFLOC1})*-1
            FORMAT/TEXT, , ,HEADINGS, , ;NOM,MEAS, , , , , 
DIM BEFORE= LOCATION OF CIRCLE CIR152_1
AX     NOMINAL        MEAS
X     10.153721   10.154507
Y    -27.402826  -27.405035
Z     -8.032519   -8.025360
END OF DIMENSION BEFORE
ALIGN1     =ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:PREVIOUS,LIST=YES
              ALIGNMENT/ROTATE_OFFSET,V4,ABOUT,XPLUS
              ALIGNMENT/ROTATE_OFFSET,V5,ABOUT,YPLUS
              ALIGNMENT/ROTATE_OFFSET,V6,ABOUT,ZPLUS
              ALIGNMENT/TRANS_OFFSET,XAXIS,V1
              ALIGNMENT/TRANS_OFFSET,YAXIS,V2
              ALIGNMENT/TRANS_OFFSET,ZAXIS,V3
            ALIGNMENT/END
DIM AFTER= LOCATION OF CIRCLE CIR152_1
AX     NOMINAL        MEAS
X     10.151373   10.152161
Y    -27.394485  -27.396694
Z     -8.041472   -8.034312
D      0.376500    0.377383
END OF DIMENSION AFTER
            COMMENT/REPT,
            "Xshift:  "+V1
            "Yshift:  "+V2
            "Zshift:  "+V3
            "Rotation X:  "+V4*-1
            "Rotation Y:  "+V5*-1
            "Rotation Z:  "+V6*-1

The FCF output with datum shift is:


Using a sphere as the only datum seems to allow all 6 degrees to float. There is some small round-off error due to the numbers being used limited to the current DISPLAYPRECISION (not much).

Now what? Trying to actually use this has me baffled. I'd like to simulate the FCF output having the transformed measured coordinates evaluated against the model nominal values. The BEFORE dim has the nominals I want but the AFTER dim has the measured I want (like the FCF output). Inserting & Recalling alignments, Updating Dependent Commands (answering both yes and no) leaves me feeling like I've found my way into a rabbit hole. Maybe Profile dims behave differently?

I'm aware that some settings may influence the results: Update Dependent Commands (warning), UpdateBelowChangedAlignmentDuringExecution (registry), Ignore CAD to part (F5 settings), Allow Fine Tuning of Alignment (F5 settings). I'd really like to get this working inline without resorting to any type of external automation if possible. Can someone throw me a bone here? There's gotta be a way to get some mileage out of this.
Parents
  • AndersI is definitely correct about not using the Datum Shift method. Although working for me when all 6 degrees are in play something behaves differently when one or more of the values are "Fixed". In practical use this will most likely always be the case so I have to suggest not using it unless you can validate the results are correct. A couple of things could be causing this but I haven't narrowed down the culprit yet. Many thanks to AndersI for pointing this out.

    The 2nd method I posted a week ago seems stable as it's basically just a 3 point to 3 point transformation PcDmis performs itself. I was able to automate the code insertion and add support for the 2nd tier of a composite FCF. Using "rotating calipers" helps to seed pre-selection of the 3 features used for spatial separation. This helped in testing more datasets.

    I need to apologize to all for not thoroughly testing the code in the initial post. I was hoping to make life easier and instead did the exact opposite. I apologize. I wish I could say it won't happen again but I will be more careful in the future.

    GomoSlower
Reply
  • AndersI is definitely correct about not using the Datum Shift method. Although working for me when all 6 degrees are in play something behaves differently when one or more of the values are "Fixed". In practical use this will most likely always be the case so I have to suggest not using it unless you can validate the results are correct. A couple of things could be causing this but I haven't narrowed down the culprit yet. Many thanks to AndersI for pointing this out.

    The 2nd method I posted a week ago seems stable as it's basically just a 3 point to 3 point transformation PcDmis performs itself. I was able to automate the code insertion and add support for the 2nd tier of a composite FCF. Using "rotating calipers" helps to seed pre-selection of the 3 features used for spatial separation. This helped in testing more datasets.

    I need to apologize to all for not thoroughly testing the code in the initial post. I was hoping to make life easier and instead did the exact opposite. I apologize. I wish I could say it won't happen again but I will be more careful in the future.

    GomoSlower
Children
No Data