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
  • Edit: Or maybe I'm thinking the wrong way about this - you're using shifted meas values compared to original meas values, no original theos involved, so the actual errors in the location of the holes are irrelevant, and three points should be enough to get the transformation matrix!

    I reverse my verdict! I believe this should work.

    Originally I wrote:

    I don't like being correct in the shift case, as your second method seems risky too!

    You select only a few of all the features PC-DMIS used for its internal bf alignment. I think you need to do your bf on all of them to be certain of getting the same alignment.

    Let's say 30 of your holes are perfect, absolutely zero dev, and three of them are off in XPLUS. Now you happen to select those three for your BF ALIGN and get a large offset in XPLUS, while PC-DMIS did its BF with all the holes and got a much smaller offset.

    Or, if 16 holes are off in XPLUS, 16 are off in XMINUS, 1 is off in YPLUS - there are quite a lot of different alignments that you can get when selecting only three of them.

    I believe that on average, with normal production methods, you're likely to get quite close, but the extreme cases can get very extreme...
Reply
  • Edit: Or maybe I'm thinking the wrong way about this - you're using shifted meas values compared to original meas values, no original theos involved, so the actual errors in the location of the holes are irrelevant, and three points should be enough to get the transformation matrix!

    I reverse my verdict! I believe this should work.

    Originally I wrote:

    I don't like being correct in the shift case, as your second method seems risky too!

    You select only a few of all the features PC-DMIS used for its internal bf alignment. I think you need to do your bf on all of them to be certain of getting the same alignment.

    Let's say 30 of your holes are perfect, absolutely zero dev, and three of them are off in XPLUS. Now you happen to select those three for your BF ALIGN and get a large offset in XPLUS, while PC-DMIS did its BF with all the holes and got a much smaller offset.

    Or, if 16 holes are off in XPLUS, 16 are off in XMINUS, 1 is off in YPLUS - there are quite a lot of different alignments that you can get when selecting only three of them.

    I believe that on average, with normal production methods, you're likely to get quite close, but the extreme cases can get very extreme...
Children
No Data