Black error 2020R2

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

  • Black error 2020R2

    Is any reasonable explanation why programs running fine in previous versions, now is showing errors in R2?
    Problem appear specially with geometric tolerance. Features which was allowed before now is not and many other. Is it changed completely way to calculating datum's?
    What with my programs from previous versions? Directly to trash?I was deliver wrong measurements to customer?
    Fundamental question to Hexagon:
    Maybe you should consider to create new version for example every 3 years and test this better, instead twice a year with 10 service packs?
    Sorry but it is irritated.....


  • #2
    Do you have a specific issue that you’d like to work through? What dimension is giving you an error in 2020 R2? What is the error?

    Comment


    • #3
      Normally, I'd make some snarky response like welcome to the demon, but I'll forgo that for you. lol

      I use PcDmis, mCosmos and Calypso here. I have machines running all of them.

      When I update a version, I keep the previous version until I run some pre-existing part programs through the new version to be sure nothing funny happens.

      PcDmis isn't the only software to have a problem creep up. When you make a program the size of PcDmis, you can't actually do full testing yourself. You know what it is supposed to do and are less likely to do things "wrong" (also known as "not as intended").

      They have thousands of users. I would say most, if not all (I'm including myself), don't always follow best practice and don't use the software strictly as intended.

      They need feedback about specific instances of failures like you are having to even know that failure is possible. They have put out some questionable releases over the years, but I think that goes for everyone. When I installed Windows XP brand new, disk given to retailers so they would sell the software, on release day, there was something like 300Mb of patches. It happens.

      That doesn't make you feel better. If we did that on parts for airplanes, people would die. I get wanting perfection.

      We aren't going to get perfection, because we are human. The next best thing you can do is protect yourself.

      Run the part program on the new version, and immediately on the old version.

      Compare the results. If they are different, check with another means to see which is correct. If the new PcDmis version is giving bad results, don't use it.

      Report to Hexagon. Let them know the specific problem, with real-life example. Let them fix it, and stay on the old version until they do.

      Never just blindly switch versions, not PcDmis, not mCosmos, not Calypso, not Modus, not any software we use in inspection. Always test first. You'll be much happier.

      Comment


      • A-machine-insp
        A-machine-insp commented
        Editing a comment
        One thing to remember with R2, it is calculating GD&T differently (new ASME Y standard) so you will get different results. Some that were good in R1 may be bad in R2 and the other way around. One thing I didn't do until I learned from R2 is constructing datum planes as primary datum planes. That, in and of it's self, can make a big difference. Running R2 has changed how I program and I believe it's for the better. I never used the bare minimum but now I am programming more points/features for everything. I work aerospace/defense and I want to be as sure as I can that the CMM is giving me good and realistic results.

      • JacobCheverie
        JacobCheverie commented
        Editing a comment
        A-machine-insp Very well put.

    • #4
      maybe.....

      https://www.pcdmisforum.com/forum/pc...9-is-published

      Comment


      • #5
        @darius Your datums are not correct. I was part of the technical preview and had issues with the first program I opened. R2 GeoTol is more particular about datums than Xact was. The big one for me was rotation lines. Almost all of our programs have 3d lines for rotation, as soon as I changed them to 2d they worked just fine. There are some other nuances but the lines were the big one with me. If you post up a specific issue, we can help you out. When you post an issue, post the code for the datums as well as the feature being checked. Every error I've had has been datum related.
        Remembering my beautiful wife Taz who's life was lost on 6-13-2020. I love you and I miss you.

        Comment


        • #6
          Also, 2020 R2 and slots:

          https://www.pcdmisforum.com/forum/pc...798#post477798
          PC-DMIS CAD++ 2o19 R1 SP11

          Comment


          • #7
            Just for the record I using ISO1101.
            Please don't get me wrong, I still think that this is best possible measure software, but the new revision makes me not believe in myself.
            If you asking about examples of not allowed in R2:
            -circle projected on plane is no longer possible to call in position
            -point constructed from centerline of cylinder and plane not allowed in position
            -slot is not allowed like secondary datum
            There was also some issues with profile, but I don't remember.
            For me its looking that R2 is tighter correlate with ISO/ASME, but unfortunately many designer creating drawing without knowledge about those standards.
            Sometimes datum's are really in tricky places... same like position is called where it shouldn't be...

            Comment


            • #8
              I would strongly suggest that you navigate through the help file on geometric tolerances to read what Hexagon has written in great detail. I have linked it below. There are many explanations and I find it very helpful, especially when diagnosing errors arising from the use of the Geometric Tolerance command. There is an entire table that explains why you may have the error and potential solution(s).

              I think part of the point here is that, as you say, designers create drawings without fully understanding GD&T. Also, CMM programmers write programs without fully understanding GD&T. This release of PC-DMIS is slightly controversial in that it is challenging industry to adhere to the standards that they claim to adhere to. Now the problem, if you will, is that the CMM programmer learns the proper GD&T and in more cases than not, the engineering team, the design team, or the customer does not want to hear it.

              https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...Tolerances.htm

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by JacobCheverie View Post
                I think part of the point here is that, as you say, designers create drawings without fully understanding GD&T. Also, CMM programmers write programs without fully understanding GD&T. This release of PC-DMIS is slightly controversial in that it is challenging industry to adhere to the standards that they claim to adhere to. Now the problem, if you will, is that the CMM programmer learns the proper GD&T and in more cases than not, the engineering team, the design team, or the customer does not want to hear it.
                PREACH MY BROTHA!!!!!

                I see this all the time from our customers and my coworkers. It's sad that they are in their position not fully knowing what they need to know and not being willing to learn. It's a plague really. I will be the first one to admit that I don't know everything but I know where to find the answers and I am willing and eager to learn.
                Last edited by A-machine-insp; 09-30-2020, 07:32 AM.
                Remembering my beautiful wife Taz who's life was lost on 6-13-2020. I love you and I miss you.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by darius View Post
                  ...
                  For me its looking that R2 is tighter correlate with ISO/ASME, but unfortunately many designer creating drawing without knowledge about those standards.
                  Sometimes datum's are really in tricky places... same like position is called where it shouldn't be...
                  This is also an issue. It is 2020, I haven't seen a single print using ASMEY14.5M-2018 yet from any customer. All still using 2009. I work aerospace, military, commercial and busjet. But PcDmis is up to date.

                  I can't think of a way to make a program that would let you pick the version of the standards you want, it would be massive and crash all over the place probably, so I'm not saying they should do something about it, but I really wish engineers at companies had to learn, and appropriately use, the current standards.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Caemgen I also have many prints with older standard revision..
                    Is it technical possibility to implement back Xact together with new Geometrical Tolerance? Like before we have Legacy with Xact.
                    Then, when old program will be opened it will recognize that was use Xact.
                    Anyway we could have 3 options to choose in menu:
                    -Legacy
                    -Xact
                    -Geometrical Tolerance

                    Guys, would you vote for this, if such of topic appear on Idea Center?

                    Comment


                    • JacobCheverie
                      JacobCheverie commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I wouldn't imagine Hexagon would give us that option with the amount of work that went in to move away from XactMeasure. If you'd like to continue to use Xact, I would suggest you run an older version of PC-DMIS. Xact was abandoned because of the issues that it had. For example, you say that Geometric Tolerance will not allow

                      "-point constructed from centerline of cylinder and plane not allowed in position"

                      This feature is not a feature of size and thus, by Y14.5, is not allowed as a considered feature in a position tolerance.

                    • Caemgen
                      Caemgen commented
                      Editing a comment
                      It would be nice if you could select the standard used by revision as well as publisher.

                      With legacy in place though, I doubt Hexagon is going to put themselves through the nightmare to do that.

                      They are probably going to figure they gave us the current version, and it is up to us to us Legacy correctly to correlate to historic versions.

                      I'm not on the Idea Center, but this would be a wonderful tool for us. Not sure it is sexy enough in a sales meeting to get any traction though.

                  • #12
                    Legacy had it's issues which triggered the XactMeasure birth, now XactMeasure also had it's issues which triggered the birth of GeoTol. Some of the things that GeoTol now forces you to do, you actually should have done in XactMeasure already, but since XactMeasure "didn't care" so much about standard compliance, we got away with it. At least that is my assumption coming from ISO (not ASME).

                    With GeoTol (if it works correctly) everybody that uses it "should" be doing it the same way - as close to standard as possible.
                    PC-DMIS CAD++ 2o19 R1 SP11

                    Comment


                    • A-machine-insp
                      A-machine-insp commented
                      Editing a comment
                      vpt.se It is the same with ASME. I have to rework a lot of programs for GeoTol. No complaint thought because I want it done right and.. I'm paid by the hour.

                  Related Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X