Hello all,
I did a little searching before posting this, but couldn't find anything that answered my question directly.
Part of my job has been updating/correcting old programs from my predecessors, and I find interesting things fairly regularly.
Today's case, I'm trying to make sure there's a program that measures all of the dimensions our inspection report calls for.
I believe I've found one, but I notice it's only measuring one set of points for Gap/Form and Trim points around the perimeter of the part. It is, however, reporting 2 different numbers from the T and S sheet metal axes options in Location Dimension.
Based on context and tolerances, the programmer appears to be using the S value to report the Gap/Form dimension.
I'm familiar with, and regularly use the T dimension, but am unfamiliar with S.
Is this a valid method of reporting a Trim dimension and a Gap/Form dimension from a single point taken on the part, or should I rewrite this and take an individual point for each?
I hope I explained that clearly.
Thanks again!
I did a little searching before posting this, but couldn't find anything that answered my question directly.
Part of my job has been updating/correcting old programs from my predecessors, and I find interesting things fairly regularly.
Today's case, I'm trying to make sure there's a program that measures all of the dimensions our inspection report calls for.
I believe I've found one, but I notice it's only measuring one set of points for Gap/Form and Trim points around the perimeter of the part. It is, however, reporting 2 different numbers from the T and S sheet metal axes options in Location Dimension.
Based on context and tolerances, the programmer appears to be using the S value to report the Gap/Form dimension.
I'm familiar with, and regularly use the T dimension, but am unfamiliar with S.
Is this a valid method of reporting a Trim dimension and a Gap/Form dimension from a single point taken on the part, or should I rewrite this and take an individual point for each?
I hope I explained that clearly.
Thanks again!
Comment