Question about theoreticals

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

  • Question about theoreticals

    This is my 1st post so be gentle please.

    I have been attempring to run some programs that were written by another individual and have a question about the THEO numbers. If you change the THEO to a variable such as PNT1.X+2.5 does this change the nominal in my report each time I run the program based on the actual of PNT1?

    Here is an example of the code in the program...

    LGRFSPT009 =AUTO/VECTOR POINT,SHOWALLPARAMS = YES
    THEO/5603.02,362.61,953.38,-0.9985262,-0.0372399,0.0394798
    ACTL/5602.532,362.592,953.399,-0.9985262,-0.0372399,0.0394798
    TARG/5603.02,362.61,953.38,-0.9985262,-0.0372399,0.0394798
    THEO_THICKNESS = 0,RECT,SNAP = YES,$
    AUTO MOVE = BOTH,DISTANCE = 5
    MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,5591.451,362.424,949.169
    LGRUSPT010 =AUTO/VECTOR POINT,SHOWALLPARAMS = YES
    THEO/LGRFSPT009.X+2.22,362.67,949.47,0.0941705,-0.00153,-0.9955549
    ACTL/5604.765,362.67,949.331,0.0941705,-0.00153,-0.9955549
    TARG/LGRFSPT009.X+2.22,362.67,949.47,0.0941705,-0.00153,-0.9955549
    THEO_THICKNESS = 0,RECT,SNAP = YES,$
    AUTO MOVE = BOTH,DISTANCE = 5

    Thanks

    Tom

  • #2
    I would think that only if you change the nominal in the dimension being reported would it change or if after you change the theo, there is a prompt to change the nom in related features, if you select ok it could change the nom value reported. But i don't think that just changing the theo to a var would do that, unless as i said you select that option to update related nominals from a pop up after you change the theo.
    sigpic

    Life's tough, but it's even tougher if you're stupid.

    Comment


    • #3
      Code:
      LGRFSPT009 =AUTO/VECTOR POINT,SHOWALLPARAMS = YES
      THEO/5603.02,362.61,953.38,-0.9985262,-0.0372399,0.0394798
      ACTL/5602.532,362.592,953.399,-0.9985262,-0.0372399,0.0394798
      TARG/5603.02,362.61,953.38,-0.9985262,-0.0372399,0.0394798
      THEO_THICKNESS = 0,RECT,SNAP = YES,$
      AUTO MOVE = BOTH,DISTANCE = 5
      
      MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,5591.451,362.424,949.169
      
      LGRUSPT010 =AUTO/VECTOR POINT,SHOWALLPARAMS = YES
      THEO/LGRFSPT009.X+2.22,362.67,949.47,0.0941705,-0.00153,-0.9955549
      ACTL/5604.765,362.67,949.331,0.0941705,-0.00153,-0.9955549
      TARG/LGRFSPT009.X+2.22,362.67,949.47,0.0941705,-0.00153,-0.9955549
      THEO_THICKNESS = 0,RECT,SNAP = YES,$
      AUTO MOVE = BOTH,DISTANCE = 5
      What Izzak said.

      Is this for checking trim edges?
      Last edited by Roberto; 10-28-2009, 03:53 PM.
      sigpicIt's corona time!
      737 Xcel Cad++ v2009MR1....SE HABLA ESPAÑOL

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Roberto View Post

        What Izzak said.

        Is this for checking trim edges?
        Yes, that is the intention, but there seems to be some difference in the nominal of the report compared to the nominal of the CAD model. I am just attempting to figure out where that difference is coming from. I am starting to change the program to use the EDGE point with surface and edge sampling

        Tom

        Comment


        • #5
          Is the CAD or the PRINT master? You need to find out which takes precedence for this product. Some companies say print, some say CAD. Perhaps he adjusted the nominals in the report for this reason. Maybe the CAD data was not correct, or maybe the parts were wrong, but the decision was made that it was not economically feasible to correct them.
          When in doubt, post code. A second set of eyes might see something you missed.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by John Kingston View Post
            Is the CAD or the PRINT master? You need to find out which takes precedence for this product. Some companies say print, some say CAD. Perhaps he adjusted the nominals in the report for this reason. Maybe the CAD data was not correct, or maybe the parts were wrong, but the decision was made that it was not economically feasible to correct them.
            Hard to think of a legit reason for that other than just plain ignorance OR they have a level of Pcdmis that does not include EDGE point, which has a "built in" function that will bypass the need to do what it appears to have been done.
            sigpic
            Originally posted by AndersI
            I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

            Comment


            • #7
              OR MAYBE someone ordered him to "sanitize" the report?!?!?!?!?!? I've been asked to do this but refused until my job was at risk, at which time I cleaned up the report but refused to sign off on it and began a search for a new job!

              Bill

              Comment


              • #8
                People do this all the time when they haven't been to training and don't realize that edge point and RMEAS exist. It works fine, and falls under the "many tools in the toolbox" but is kind of like using vice grips to tighten your shift knob. Unnecessary.

                Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
                Hard to think of a legit reason for that other than just plain ignorance OR they have a level of Pcdmis that does not include EDGE point, which has a "built in" function that will bypass the need to do what it appears to have been done.
                --Brian

                "The best way to predict the future is invent it. This includes your very next action."

                Support: Hexagon Metrology Support Center
                Training: Hexagon Metrology University

                Comment


                • #9
                  Unless the individual who originally wrote the program had no Cad ++
                  sigpicIt's corona time!
                  737 Xcel Cad++ v2009MR1....SE HABLA ESPAÑOL

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I guess that my question should have been centered more around how PC DMIS uses the THEO and whether it automatically updates the report nominals every time you run the program.

                    It seems to me that it would have been reasonable to use the variable in the TARGET area to accomplish his objective. Just not sure of the ramifications of using variables in the THEO.

                    We have the EDGE function and the program was written with CAD++

                    Tom

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If the EDGE function was already available, as was CAD++, it looks to me like someone was trying to get fancy for no reason, or were they trying to compensate for possible extra machine stock?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        These are injection molded plastic parts, no machining involved. I don't think there is anything underhanded going on, just want to understand what might be happening. I thought that by posting here it might save me some time as I wouldn't have to try to prove/disprove whether the nominals change or not.

                        Tom

                        Comment

                        Related Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X