ver 3.7MR3 alignment question

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

  • ver 3.7MR3 alignment question

    When I have a CAD model, the way I usually do the alignment is this:

    Import

    Do a manual iterative to 6-7 points, OR a combination of other features.

    Then do a dcc iterative, using more points/hits on the same features.

    Next, in order to make the trihedron shift to the orientation and location that matches the print (the CAD origin is rarely where the print origin is), I create the per-print datum structure, using planes, or lines or cylinders (as required for each part) measuring these features. I then do a non-iterative alignment to those measured features.

    Example:
    1. Select Dat_A (a measured plane) and then LEVEL TO Z plus.
    2. Select Dat_B (another measured plane) and ROTATE TO X minus.
    3. Select XYZ ( a point constructed from the corner of planes Dat_A, Dat_B and Dat_C) and origin to X and Y
    4. Select Dat_A and origin to Z.
    5. Create

    Never in this process do I click CAD=PART (cuz the iterative usually takes care of that).

    My question is, should I do this (create this ABC alignment after a DCC iter)? Is this messing around with what the dcc iterative alignment achieved?

    I sometimes get weird results on parts... Results that I cannot confirm with a surface plate and a height gage. Just thinking that my approach may be faulty, adding an additional 'ABC' alignment after a dcc iterative.
    Last edited by d.evans; 02-23-2007, 12:55 PM.
    ** "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"~ Ulysses Everett McGill **

  • #2
    No you don't have to do a CAD=PART. You have done exactly what I do in order to align my parts.
    sigpic

    James Mannes

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JamesMannes View Post
      No you don't have to do a CAD=PART. You have done exactly what I do in order to align my parts.
      See edited question (I wasn't very clear)...thanks for the reply.
      ** "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"~ Ulysses Everett McGill **

      Comment


      • #4
        I would check all the inspection features using the iterative alignment, dimension them (so the dims are to CAD nominals) then do the print alignment and re-dimension them. This will give you a cross-check, cad to print.
        sigpic
        Originally posted by AndersI
        I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
          I would check all the inspection features using the iterative alignment, dimension them (so the dims are to CAD nominals) then do the print alignment and re-dimension them. This will give you a cross-check, cad to print.
          Good idea. Thanks.
          ** "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"~ Ulysses Everett McGill **

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
            I would check all the inspection features using the iterative alignment, dimension them (so the dims are to CAD nominals) then do the print alignment and re-dimension them. This will give you a cross-check, cad to print.
            So, if I dimension using the dcc iterative alignment, I am reporting the difference between CAD nominals and actuals, right? I have a part that I simply took a series of hits at specified levels, on a cone-shaped part. I reported T-values of each hit under the dcc - iterative alignment. Those results will simply state the deviation from the CAD model?
            ** "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"~ Ulysses Everett McGill **

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by d.evans View Post
              So, if I dimension using the dcc iterative alignment, I am reporting the difference between CAD nominals and actuals, right? I have a part that I simply took a series of hits at specified levels, on a cone-shaped part. I reported T-values of each hit under the dcc - iterative alignment. Those results will simply state the deviation from the CAD model?
              Yes, they will, as long as they come from the CAD data.
              sigpic
              Originally posted by AndersI
              I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

              Comment


              • #8
                Is it possible to

                Is it possible to report concentricity of a constructed circle, using the points I took, to the CAD?
                When I tried to do this, it showed the origin, way off in space, when the CAD's own origin is at the center/bottom of the part. So the concentricity had a deviation of about 3 inches, when it ought to be no more than a couple .001".
                Any suggestions?
                ** "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"~ Ulysses Everett McGill **

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X