Origin Position

[AuRules]

First thanks for the reply everyone on the first thread I sent out today.

Now heres the second thread (question) instead of using a iterate alignment to measure my part with ship cordinates out in space does everyone agree or disagree that if I can get one of my engineers to move the origin to the part would this be easier to program, because I will not be using a iterate alignment and does my cad model data still work. I just wandering if I touch a point on the screen and my machine goes to that point will I be able to use the T value for dimensions. So fellows help a beer drinker out.

P.S.
Since the origin is on the part does CAD=PART work in this instance

[Don Ruggieri]

Yes, and NO

First of all, whether the origin is on the part of off the part, that does not determine whether or not an iterative alignment is necessary. What is more important is what kind of features are used for datums and what kind of part is it. Machined surfaces with square corners don't need iterative alignments, no matter where the origin is. Sculpted parts with no flat surfaces benefit greatly from iterative alignments.

CAD=PART will work (when properly programmed) with models that have origins in space, just as well as those that have origins on the part. The trick is that you need to know what the offsets are (for the former example).

I think there are benefits to having the origin on the part, but the type of alignment used is not necessarily one of them.

[Matthew D. Hoedeman]

Once you do it 3 or 4 (hundred) times, you will discover that the location of the origin (x0y0z0) does not make a bit of difference, it is more a frame of mind than it is location of origin. If you can not 'get it' that an origin need NOT be X0Y0Z0 it will be harder to get this idea.

[Paul Barriage]

Why move origins?

What could be easier than an iterative alignment? Or more accurate?

As long as you follow the basics, a simple iterative alignment will let you work from CAD after 6 manual hits.