V3.7 to V4.1 True Position?

[mwheeler]

I am having trouble using the true position report in v4.1. The measured values are way off. Does anyone have advice on using the new TP reporting?

[JamesMannes]

Under the advanced tab choose to use current alignment instead of datum reference?

[Jan d.]

What's the call that gives you trouble? Does it have a VC on the datums? If so, this can lead to some surprising results, as V3.7 could not handle the VC analysis.

Please post your exact TP calls.


Jan.

[mwheeler]

The feature is a cylinder RFS. The problem I am having is that the measured value is 0. The feature is out of position and this should not be 0. Also what is the section for offset and rotation? Can I use 3.7 reporting stlye?

Thanks,
Mark

[Jan d.]

The feature is a cylinder RFS. The problem I am having is that the measured value is 0. The feature is out of position and this should not be 0. Also what is the section for offset and rotation? Can I use 3.7 reporting stlye?

Thanks,
Mark

OK, so the feature is RFS. How about your datums?

Yes, you can get back to 3.7 style dimensioning, by going Insert/Dimension and go all the way to the bottom and click on Use Legacy Dimensions. That does not mean that they are right though... I have tested the 4.2 Xactmeasure GD&T extensively and I find it to be reliable.

Again, please post the complete TP call, INCLUDING the datum calls.


Jan.

[mwheeler]

DATDEF/FEATURE=-A-,DATUM=A
DATDEF/FEATURE=-B-,DATUM=B
DATDEF/FEATURE=-C-,DATUM=C
FCFLOC1 = TRUE POSITION OF 35.6-CYLINDER
FEATCTRLFRAME/SHOWNOMS=NO,SHOWPARAMS=YES,SHOWEXPANDED=YES
CADGRAPH=OFF REPORTGRAPH=OFF TEXT=OFF MULT=10.00 OUTPUT=REPORT UNITS=MM
COMPOSITE=NO,FIT TO DATUMS=YES,OUTPUT ALIGNMENT=Current Alignment
SIZE TOLERANCES/1,DIAMETER,31.5,0.8,0.8
PRIMARY DIMENSION/TRUE POSITION,DIAMETER,2.0,RFS,<PZ>,<len>,A,B,C
SECONDARY DIMENSION/<Dim>,<tol>,<MC>,<PZ>,<len>,<dat>,<dat>,<dat>
NOTE/FCFLOC1
FEATURES/35.6-CYLINDER,,

[Jan d.]

One thing that immediately strikes me here: you are using a "-" and the "." sign in your feature names. I found that to be highly problematic. Hoedemann has straightened me out on that many times. Change them before you run into more problems. Search for Hoedeman's post on this issue.

Other then that, your call looks clean and it should never give you zero, unless you are dead-on.


Jan.