A Simple Xact Measure question

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

  • A Simple Xact Measure question

    At least, I think it is. I've never used it, not familiar at all with it. I used to use CMM Manager in a prior job though, and in that software, you basically did an iterative alignment, anyway that was convenient, then measured your datums, then features. When you dimensioned your features, you referred them back to the datums.

    Is that how PCDmis Xact measure works? Can I just do a Man/DCC Iterative alignment, then measure my datums, define them, and from there measure my features and define them?

    Or should I just stick to legacy lol.

  • #2
    Pretty much, yes. Visit Wes Cisco's thread about the Hexagon GD&T class for some more info. I use XactMeasure exclusively, unless the need for some special magic involving variables etc., that can't be solved with XactMeasure - then I use legacy.
    PC-DMIS CAD++ 2o19 R1 SP10

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by vpt.se View Post
      Pretty much, yes. Visit Wes Cisco's thread about the Hexagon GD&T class for some more info. I use XactMeasure exclusively, unless the need for some special magic involving variables etc., that can't be solved with XactMeasure - then I use legacy.
      Thank you, I experimented with it last night, using it in that matter and it seemed to be working properly. I just wasn't sure if it was considered "best practice"

      Comment


      • #4
        slumming on a Friday. . . haha

        I am now at a new job, with a new CMM and v2015.0 sp1 (the latest, maybe greatest?). I am trying to use Xactmeasure for everything now. It has improved a great deal since I wrote my review of the GD&T class. When it doubt, it only takes a few seconds to flip over and double dimension in legacy. You should see very little difference, but often it is nearly impossible to make legacy exactly match Xactmeasure for all dimensions. This usually boils down to how the alignment is structured from the datum features, deviation perp to centerline, start/end/worst part of 3D feature, etc. In legacy it is up to the programmer to correctly dial in all of those options for every dimension. With newer versions, Xactmeasure can be relied on to do most of that for you, at least most of the time. If you are suffering with the most difficult, complex, and obstruse corners of GD&T, legacy might still be your best option in many cases, but I would guess that for 80% of users, (or more), unless your SMA is way out of date and you are using something older than ~v2012, Xactmeasure is the better, faster, smarter tool to use.

        ymmv
        sigpic"Hated by Many, Loved by Few" _ A.B. - Stone brewery

        Comment


        • #5
          ^^^ what vpt.se and Wes said.
          BTW, Wes.... should you now be referred to as Wes Frisco?
          (not really a big fan of the 2015 series of releases. 2014.1 seems to do what it should except ability to drag auto-feature hits graphically)
          have a good weekend::::::::::::::::::::::

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wes Cisco View Post
            I am now at a new job, with a new CMM and v2015.0 sp1 (the latest, maybe greatest?). I am trying to use Xactmeasure for everything now. It has improved a great deal since I wrote my review of the GD&T class. When it doubt, it only takes a few seconds to flip over and double dimension in legacy. You should see very little difference, but often it is nearly impossible to make legacy exactly match Xactmeasure for all dimensions. This usually boils down to how the alignment is structured from the datum features, deviation perp to centerline, start/end/worst part of 3D feature, etc. In legacy it is up to the programmer to correctly dial in all of those options for every dimension. With newer versions, Xactmeasure can be relied on to do most of that for you, at least most of the time. If you are suffering with the most difficult, complex, and obstruse corners of GD&T, legacy might still be your best option in many cases, but I would guess that for 80% of users, (or more), unless your SMA is way out of date and you are using something older than ~v2012, Xactmeasure is the better, faster, smarter tool to use.

            ymmv
            +1
            PC-DMIS CAD++ 2o19 R1 SP10

            Comment

            Related Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X