2020 R2 vs 2019 R2

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

  • 2020 R2 vs 2019 R2

    We currently have 2018 R1 on our computer, and are looking to upgrade. I want a simplistic interface for our unskilled operators to have ease of use and access, similar to the one found on 2019 R2.

    Does anyone have the 2020 R2 installed yet?

    If so, has the home screen interface changed any with this release, or does it still look like 2019 at the home screen, with the two folders and a row of recent programs underneath?

    If the home screen has changed any, can someone upload a snip of the new Home Screen?

    Have any of you had serious problems with the new migration from XactMeasure to the 2020 GD&T Measure technology?

    Thanks!

  • #2
    The home screen interface is the same in 2020 R2 as 2019 R2.

    As for the migration of tolerancing...no serious problems yet, just had to tweak a few small things.

    Comment


    • #3
      The biggest difference is FCF is converted to GEOTOL (new to 2020 R2) which is not back saving compatible. It is a one way street.

      Comment


      • #4
        I have been having to rewrite several programs since updating to 2020 R2. The major reason is my GDT, I am getting an error that says "Datum C has too few points to fit uniquely", so all the GDT is failing. I do not understand this, and am looking for an explanation and how to make things work without rewritting and going back to Legacy Dimensions. Most of my drawings use datum target points, and so I would be in violation of drawing by establishing datum C as more than 1 point, which is still a legitimate tertiary datum according to ASME Y14.5-2018. Currently stumped if anyone has any insight, and wanting to share my frustrations as it's applicable to this thread. Thanks

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Woody S, are you able to share a copy of the program and drawing? If so, please email me at [email protected] and I will send you a link to upload them to our secure file transfer site.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Woody S View Post
            I have been having to rewrite several programs since updating to 2020 R2. The major reason is my GDT, I am getting an error that says "Datum C has too few points to fit uniquely", so all the GDT is failing. I do not understand this, and am looking for an explanation and how to make things work without rewritting and going back to Legacy Dimensions. Most of my drawings use datum target points, and so I would be in violation of drawing by establishing datum C as more than 1 point, which is still a legitimate tertiary datum according to ASME Y14.5-2018. Currently stumped if anyone has any insight, and wanting to share my frustrations as it's applicable to this thread. Thanks
            Very interested in this, as we are still in decision-making mode, but updating very soon (maybe as soon as a week or two). Our prints don't have a lot of GD&T on them, but what there is, is from pre-1990-era GD&T, and we all know the standard has changed several times since then, as it has gotten refined.

            Comment


            • Scott D. Haselden
              Scott D. Haselden commented
              Editing a comment
              This was also the crux and reason for my post.

            • neil.challinor
              neil.challinor commented
              Editing a comment
              If you need to work to the 1994 version of ASME then you should be using legacy dimensions regardless of the PC-Dmis version you choose to upgrade to. The standard changed in 2009 so any version between PC-Dmis 2009 and 2020 R1 will use Y14.5 2009 (for XactMeasure) and 2020 R2 onwards will use the current revision (Y14.5 2018) for the geometric tolerance command. There have not been any changes in relation to legacy dimensioning so the 2020 R2 enhancements should not affect you.

          • #7
            Woody S I'm also curious to see what the problem is here. I have migrated a few programs using datum targets with just one point for the tertiary datum and haven't experienced this issue.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Scott D. Haselden View Post
              ... I want a simplistic interface for our unskilled operators to have ease of use and access...
              Have you checked out Hexagon's free Inspect software? It's a clean front-end interface that'll allow unskilled operators to run PC-DMIS without any snags.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by JacobCheverie View Post

                Have you checked out Hexagon's free Inspect software? It's a clean front-end interface that'll allow unskilled operators to run PC-DMIS without any snags.
                I was not aware this existed, so I have not had an opportunity to look into it, but I will now. Likely will download it and see if it fits our need. Thanks!

                Comment


                • #10
                  I manage two portable work stations and have had nothing but issues with the new GD&T interface. I even had a tech come up and show me that when probing without a CAD model she couldn't even get perpendicularity to work. I gave it a go on a 1-2-3 block and ended up with the same issue (unable to complete the calculation). I'm still trying to figure that one out since the 3D pdf functionality in 2020 R2 is a huge boon when dealing with engineers that either have difficulty with the report or assume that PC-DMIS = Solidworks.

                  Otherwise, 2020 R1 and R2 have been great to use; we had major stability issues when running both releases of 2019.

                  Comment


                  • graysunlight
                    graysunlight commented
                    Editing a comment
                    The long and the short is that the views that you capture in your report should be interactive. So rather than relying on several static snapshots to tell the story as you would in a 2D pdf a 3D pdf would allow you to pan, rotate and zoom around the views that you've added to the report.

                  • JacobCheverie
                    JacobCheverie commented
                    Editing a comment
                    When probing without a CAD model, your nominal (THEO) vectors will, typically, not be perfect (as they are on the print). If your nominal vectors aren't perfectly orthogonal to one another, the calculation for perpendicularity will fail because the Geometric Tolerance command does not see the features as nominally perpendicular. You need to correct your vectors.

                    Also, Hexagon went above and beyond in their help file explaining the new Geometric Tolerance command. They even included a comprehensive list of the error messages that you will receive that includes why you are seeing them, and potential solutions as well. Check it out @ https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...d_warnings.htm
                    Last edited by JacobCheverie; 10-20-2020, 02:40 PM.

                  • vpt.se
                    vpt.se commented
                    Editing a comment
                    What Jacob Cheverie states, of course the GD&T should work even without CAD, just as long you make sure the nominals are correct.

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X