New game - spot the issue!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New game - spot the issue!

    Engineering is riding me because I'm telling them their part is out. The claim is they run similar parts from the same vendor, the previous programmer never had the parts fail. They want me to program the way he did. So I look at the previous program.

    Mind you, datum C is horribly defined, but I was able to wade though it with a different method (which is, of course, where the problem lies). What's worse, the parts won't go together, but they can't figure out why.

    So, here's the "good" code they like. Anyone see any issues? For reference, datum A is a ZPLUS plane.

    Code:
    WORKPLANE/ZPLUS
                COMMENT/REPT,
    
    DATUM C POINT 1=FEAT/POINT,CARTESIAN
                THEO/<-15,5,-0.245>,<0,0,1>
                ACTL/<-15,5,-0.2481>,<0,0,1>
                MEAS/POINT,1,WORKPLANE
                  MOVE/CLEARPLANE
                  HIT/BASIC,NORMAL,<-15,5,-0.245>,<0,0,1>,<-15,5,-0.2481>,USE THEO=YES
                ENDMEAS/
    DATUM C POINT 2=FEAT/POINT,CARTESIAN
                THEO/<-15,-5,-0.245>,<0,0,1>
                ACTL/<-15,-5,-0.2277>,<0,0,1>
                MEAS/POINT,1,WORKPLANE
                  MOVE/CLEARPLANE
                  HIT/BASIC,NORMAL,<-15,-5,-0.245>,<0,0,1>,<-15,-5,-0.2277>,USE THEO=YES
                ENDMEAS/
                MOVE/CLEARPLANE
    DATUM C LINE=FEAT/LINE,CARTESIAN,UNBOUNDED,NO
                THEO/<-15,5,-0.245>,<0,-1,0>
                ACTL/<-15,5,-0.2379>,<-0.0000021,-1,0>
                CONSTR/LINE,BF,2D,DATUM C POINT 1,DATUM C POINT 2,,
                OUTLIER_REMOVAL/OFF,3
                FILTER/OFF,WAVELENGTH=0
                COMMENT/REPT,
    
                DATDEF/FEATURE=DATUM A,A
                DATDEF/FEATURE=DATUM_B_PLANE,B
                DATDEF/FEATURE=DATUM C LINE,C

  • #2
    "Z" points measured in the "Z" plane do NOT make a line with a "Y" vector. You need to be in the "X" plane to make that "Y" vector line
    sigpic
    Originally posted by AndersI
    I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

    Comment


    • InspectorJester
      InspectorJester commented
      Editing a comment
      Jimmy, tell him what he's won!

  • #3
    In addition, I guess SNAP is on...
    Turn it off, and the line will move from an execution to another !
    And spaces shouldn't be used in feature names...

    Comment


    • #4
      This is what I'm supposed to aspire to, apparently....

      Comment


      • Don Ruggieri
        Don Ruggieri commented
        Editing a comment
        Wait until they come back with "but that's the way we've always done it"

    • #5
      3, I can come up with 3 items that are WRONG. I don't even need the print to understand the points for C are a complete farse... Good luck RJ

      Comment


      • #6
        Originally posted by RandomJerk View Post
        What's worse, the parts won't go together, but they can't figure out why.
        This is the issue that should be spotted! If the parts don't go together, the parts are wrong. If the parts are wrong, and their checking method says they are OK, then their checking method is wrong.

        Simple as that.

        AndersI
        SW support - Hexagon Metrology Nordic AB

        Comment


        • bfire85
          bfire85 commented
          Editing a comment
          Oh come on! Using common sense!? Lol

        • Kp61dude!
          Kp61dude! commented
          Editing a comment
          What the heck is sense common? Doesn't make sense...Is he a rapper?

      • #7
        Another solution is a good part with a wrong definition ...

        Comment


        • #8
          Originally posted by RandomJerk View Post
          What's worse, the parts won't go together, but they can't figure out why.
          "The parts are bad because the CMM measured them wrong!" Brilliant.

          "This is my word... and as such is beyond contestation."

          Comment


          • #9
            Originally posted by VinniUSMC View Post

            "The parts are bad because the CMM measured them wrong!" Brilliant.

            Seriously...Watch out for them CMMs one day they're happy other days they're not.
            PcDmis 2015.1 SP10 CAD++
            Global 7-10-7 DC800S

            Comment


            • #10
              Finally got them to understand what the problem was with the program, so the solution was to no longer use it as the datum, even though it's the only datum that ties machining back to the casting. I demonstrated how, with one simple print change, everything could be copasetic, but then that "makes" the parts bad.

              Everything looks fine when the part is checked to machining datums only, so there's some other issue that's causing the parts to have huge mismatches when assembled. Obviously.

              I'm going to become an Uber driver.....

              Comment


              • #11
                Originally posted by RandomJerk View Post
                I'm going to become an Uber driver.....
                RIght? They keep asking me to drive for them? I don't think I would last though, you still have to deal with people. Maybe Uber eats, just delivering food. . . .

                Comment


                • RandomJerk
                  RandomJerk commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I drove a cab many many years ago, overnight shift. Actually, wasn't too bad a gig, you rarely had to deal with the most obnoxious a-holes for much more than 20 minutes.

                • VinniUSMC
                  VinniUSMC commented
                  Editing a comment
                  That's 20 minutes too long. I don't even want to spend 20 minutes dealing with the least obnoxious a-holes...
              Working...
              X