Vector pnt -vs- Surface pnts Pros_&_Cons

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

  • #16
    One of the main reasons that I do use surface points, is the fact that you can use the "relative measure" function.

    When necessary, I will use 3 initial & 3 permanent hits, otherwise I will use only the one hit.

    ZydecoPete
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #17
      I always use vector points. I have cad data for most of my jobs.
      sigpic


      Was
      Pc-dmis 3.5 MR1 B & S 2009 MR1

      Now
      2010 MR3

      Comment


      • #18
        I also use the "relative measure" too Peter. And Wes you hit it right on the head. That is why I am asking. As it seems to me, Surface points are all around has options that are very useful.

        I would like to know what B&S has to say, but no SMA. Hey that ryhmes.
        sigpicSummer Time. Gotta Love it!

        Comment


        • #19
          I always (99+% of the time, even if I have to make it myself) have cad and I always use vector points, with one exception: If I have to check something, anything, that is not flat and sqaure that I don't have cad for, I will use a surface point and have it find the surface vector with the sample hits. That is the only time I will use them. And I have probably used them 8 times in the last 5 years at a guess. Also, when you are doing 3-D scanning with a TTP, and you want good data, and you have no cad data, you have 2 options, use surface points w/3 sample hits OR use vector points with the probe comp turned OFF. If you try to scan using vector points, either patch or linear, you will ONLY GET 2 axis of probe comp. (I am not sure about the patch, I AM sure about the linear). It will only comp along the 'slice' of your path, no 'cross-wise' comp will be there. So, since I do not want to take 1200 points to get 300 data points, I scan with the comp OFF using vector points. This is for 3-D scanning, if you are doing a 2-D scan (like the trim edge of a die steel or the profile of a flat blank) you can leave the comp on and use vector points since you will be scanning only a flat and square slice of the detail.
          sigpic
          Originally posted by AndersI
          I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

          Comment


          • #20
            at the top: ATTN B&S, Wilcox, Hexagon, et all

            I have always wondered about this. Let's keep this near the top and see if we can get a representative to give us the straight dope about just what the difference between a surface point without sample hits and a vector point is.

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

            Comment


            • #21
              A surface point without samples is the exact same thing as a vector point, Pcdmis will try to touch at the XYZ nominal moving along the nominal IJK vector. To tell the truth, I do NOT know why they have both when the surface point will act just like a vector point. The only thing I can thing of is that the vector point has been around since the early DOS days and I am not sure if the surface point was or not, it may have been added because someone (that same, special someone who has the ear of Wilcox/B&S for the 'user' improvements) wanted to be able to check a vector point with sample hits, so for a change, they added what is a useful function without removing a different useful function.

              But, even if they didn't mess this aspect up, they DID remove a VERY useful function in the migration from DOS to WINDOWS, does anyone else remember the option to construct an offset point ALONG the vector of another feature? I do, it was sure handy. Say you have a measured line and a measured point and you want to offset the point ALONG the vector of the line by 10mm. Used to be able to do this, in DOS, but no longer. If the vector of the line does not ever change, yep, you can stiull do it by calculating 10* each vector and using that for the offset, but what happens if the line twists by 5 degrees? Now you have to go and re-calculate and re-construct the point. Annoying to say the least. It would come in VERY handy indeed for SPC bushings, all without the need to make a seperate alignment.
              sigpic
              Originally posted by AndersI
              I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

              Comment


              • #22
                OK, Matt, One and All

                You use Vector Points the same reason I use Surface Points. HABIT !

                I feel a lot better now.

                Though that does not help me explain to others. Its hard to explain to none CMM'ers, that something is the same when there is two options. There is no logic
                to it. Not that they understand LOGIC>
                sigpicSummer Time. Gotta Love it!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well, there is ONE other reason for it, if the options are NOT there, then I don't have to worry about a follow-up user changing something, like the number of sample hits. you know how it is, look at what Winston is dealing with. Could be much worse, could have someone on the followup shift that likes to 'play' with the things he sees in the program. 'Hmmmmm, sample hits, what will it do if I change them?'. I say, give the children a few options as possible, then there is less they can surprise you with. Right now, the night guy that I have does not do things like that, but in the past, I have had some real 'great' pretenders on the machine that just could not leave well enough alone. I have nothing against 'playing' with the options in the spare time, but NOT IN ONE OF MY WORKING PROGRAMS!

                  To explain to those non-users, simply tell them the truth, the surface point offers MORE functions of use than the VECTOR point does AND if all you have is the basic version of Pcdmis, you DO NOT GET the surface point option. You get VECTOR, EDGE and CIRCLE in the basic version and that is all (as far as I know, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong). Once you get up to the CAD++ version, you have all the INTERNAL bells and whistles of Pcdmis, even if you don't have all the external bells (DCI, import/export types, etc.). So, tell them that the SURFACE point is a POWERED UP, EXTENDED vector point that you get with the higher power version of Pcdmis. Sort of like you can buy a car with a stick shift and you can get either the 5 speed or the 6 speed. They both do the same thing, so why would you want the 6 speed? Does it not offer more options that the 5 speed and yet perform the same function?
                  sigpic
                  Originally posted by AndersI
                  I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Gotcha, Vector points are the UnderDogs of Surface Points. Or Surface Points are the SuperMans of Vector Points

                    I will use your analogy.

                    '
                    sigpicSummer Time. Gotta Love it!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      hmmmm

                      Matt, I see your point, sort of. But why not just drop vector point in CAD++ version or just expand the bells and whistles on vector point and have no surface point. To use your analogy, why would you want both a 5 speed *AND* a 6 speed transmission in your car at the same time with the option of using either to do the same thing???? Maybe I am just dense.
                      sigpic"Hated by Many, Loved by Few" _ A.B. - Stone brewery

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        No, That was dam good Wes.

                        Well MAtt?
                        sigpicSummer Time. Gotta Love it!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          But Wes, can a CAR DEALER (our position in this analogy) ONLY keep 5-sp trans around or only the 6-sp? We do NOT know what our customers will want all the time, some will want teh 5-sp, some will want the 6. What if you have to pass YOUR program on to your customer and you use SURFACE points and they don't have the CAD++ and can not even run your program? I have seen this happen with MY programs, not with the SURFACE/VECTOR issue, but with SLOTS. I had to go back a re-program the slots into 2 circles because the basic version of Pcdmis will NOT run a slot, only the vector, edge and circle.
                          sigpic
                          Originally posted by AndersI
                          I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            OK, its like a SUV that has 2WD and 4WD. Depends on your driving means
                            sigpicSummer Time. Gotta Love it!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              all the more reason

                              Matt, isn't that all the more reason for CAD++ to just have the expanded parameters of the same option instead of a new option altogether. Scaled down versions of the software should still be able to run the CAD++ program, just not generate new code using CAD++ features. But then again, new releases of the software should be properly and completely vetted and debugged before being offically released, so in light of that, I will shut up now since none of the actual B&S/Wilcox/Hexagon people seem to care to explain why we need two buttons when one will do.
                              sigpic"Hated by Many, Loved by Few" _ A.B. - Stone brewery

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                3.7 mr3
                                For what it's worth, I've had this discussion on several occassions with BnS. We measure complex surfaces (automotive glass) and I usually have cad data (XYZIJK of points plus the cad iges). I had noticed variations particularly with vector points and differences between vector and surface points even using the exact same data. I had always used surface points in the past, especially with MM4.
                                Their advice was use surface points with Snap point ON. This is what I do, with initial and perm set to 0.
                                It seems to work fine for us and I agree that there shouldn't be any difference unless you need to take initial or perm hits first.
                                When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Hunter S. Thompson

                                Comment

                                Related Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X