All Activity

Hi James, 418 Problem with sliding average <- I know this error on our CMM when the Vast head was defective. I think that is some kind of hardware error.

Hello, I am trying to do a condition to stop the CNC is the part is not well oriented on the granit. If I mesure just the point (F9) I have the CNC break (and the message in the setting) If I ran the whole program there is no CNC break. Do I miss something ? Slts

Problem wurde mit Servicepack 8.0.12 behoben. Nun wird auch bei der Helix die richtige Position angezeigt. 809066 Kreise, mit Helix gemessen, wurden in der GD&T engine berechnet ohne auf eine vorgegebene Kreisebene zu projizieren. Das konnte zu falschen Ergebnissen führen.

I'm looking for access to be able to set parameters for Temperature Compensation. I see that I can place parameters on which sensors to use and the coefficient, but I'd ideally like to be able to either turn on/off compensation via PCM, and/or set a part temperature via PCM.

Jake - a few things: The recommendation is 3:1 of actual to nominal points - so in a lot of your cases you have 2000 nominal points, so you should be collecting 6000 actual points. Sharp corners are extremely difficult to measure correctly because 99.9% of the time there are no nominal points on the sharp corner, so the software doesn't have a great idea on how to round the edge. Very rarely do true sharp corners exist, so sometimes you can "cheat" with an unknown curve to get it to wrap around the edge correctly. Most of the time I would recommend to just measure the segments independently (say you have a 200 point nominal curve that point 1-100 are the first line of the wall, and 101-200 are the second line of the adjacent wall; you can tell the software to measure 1-100; and then have another segment inside of that curve to measure 101-200). You also might have to limit evaluation (Nom. Vector Direction) right at the edge. You are possibly defining too many nominal points. My general recommendation is when you build them, tell it 25 points per segment.

A straight line should be a "3D Curve" feature. It seems backwards, but that is what it needs to be for this specific type of section line.

What sensor are you using for this? The methodology may be similar, but an active system like the Vast Gold or Vast XT can use a feature called flyscan which can be quite useful for things like rifling. As a general method, create a circle with a short partial arc strategy (enough to hit 1 land whether it starts in a groove or not, but not much more than that) near one end of the barrel. Set that strategy to use single points (you may be able to just scan based on the depth of your grooves and size of probe), and set your point density/spacing enough that you’ll definitely get a good point on a land, but not so many it takes forever to run. From this feature extract a point on the land (most likely using a max point of that circle feature). Use that point as the clocking feature in an alignment, so that one of the axes points directly through the land. Use this alignment as the alignment for your datum measuring feature, so that way the start of the strategy will always adjust to be on the land that it found previously. From here you have options for how to actually check the datum feature. You could flyscan a circle,do a 360 circle set to single points with a number of points equal to your land count so each point will hit a land(then rotate by the Twist RateXDistance to do another measurement further along the barrel), or potentially use a cylinder feature with several helixes matched to the twist to traverse the entire barrel scanning the land depending on what you need.

OK so far as i found you will use tangential element - exception is usage of gauss for MMB. So i would use that stepped cylinder with OT evaluation - don't forget filtering and so on 🙂

Why gauss? I would outer tangential in ASME.

I believe that Freeform reads and extracts the nominals from the CAD model directly. Moving the CAD model may be causing your problem. Maybe use more than 1 model?

I have no idea how far is your part physically moved in machine space, but you can try increasing search distance for points. Otherwise i would tryout adjusted alignment reflecting actual state.

On 2019 i would use stepped cylinder with gauss settings. I hope someone will pop up here soon i have to find info about datums.

Has anybody flipped a part in the program and then tried using a free form surface after flipping? Calypso tells me "Not enough points" and wants to put the actual points in the original alignment and I can't seem to get this to work. I've got the features on the correct alignment. In the picture, I've flipped the part 180° about the X from the original alignment and I've recalled the curve points in yellow. I've also tried manually probing as well as using point sets. The issue seems to be the free from surface feature itself. Any suggestions?

How can I do a 3 polyline on an OD without hitting three slots on the OD, so I could get my OD measurements.

I am working on a drawing from Germany and don't want to make any assumptions. Plus, I am using 2019 so new GD&T is not an option. I just want to know how other standards interpret

Thanks, I just looked at the RT position and axis in the RT window and it is relative to base alignment once the RT Axis program is run with the ref spheres. And the X, Y location is different than the Rough RT Location and would be more exact.

I think new GD&T will do as picture shows. At least on Inspect i was looking at ISO for ABC and it was doing tangential plane - only way i found that was when i applied deviations on surface while ISO and Geometry it was showing 0.063mm flatness because of one sprayed hill on that A plane. So i assume you will be the safest if you use new GD&T and then compare it with you approach with alignment then datums to obtain same value.

Attached is picture of how to interpret 2 inline datum features in ASME. Does ISO or DIN interpret this in the same manner? I assume a stepped cylinder set to Outer Tangential would do the trick.

I don't think this will have any effect. It is only for the 'rough' location. you should be fine.

I remember now. If I create a curve aligned with my base alignment Y axis then it works fine. I created a secondary alignment rotated 10 degrees, made a copy of my curve, called it curve #2, and rotated it to the secondary alignment and the vectors and curve looks okay. It's been a while.

Owen, Howdy, sure, these are mainly to tell Gear Pro how to align the K-Tolerance Band to the actual data, there are a few ways. By default with a K-Chart I think the general rule of thumb is the 'highest point of the trace/measurement' typically aligns to the top of the tolerance band. What is shown as upper tolerance option above. There is also the option to align the trace/measurement data of the lowest point which will then 'become' the lower tolerance band alignment. Reference Line is to any arbitrary 0 line to attempt to center the trace I presume. Zero point I think is to start the band where the trace starts at zero it appears. You can also restrict the alignment range allowed so as it looks for a hi point or low point of trace, you can restrict the area it searches for, this is typically reduced to the main profile area around the center /PD allowing for some end relief etc. In most cases unless otherwise specified - upper tolerance should be fine, if unsure consult your Engineering Dept. Good luck !

No offense meant, Pat. Just trying to provide information that might help.

So I have a pre-installed program for our rotary table (RT) After homing the CMM I need to redo the RT axis, the Rough RT Location is a program pre-installed and uses the center bore of the RT for it's position. I have 2 circles in the features column and one is base alignment and the other is CMM alignment, they are within a few microns of each other in X and Y Would one be more ideal to use than the other for establishing the rough location before doing an RT Axis program?

grr... Yeah I got my datums swapped. I described the part I'm working on, not the one you are...

Hello, I would use some other feature in your Base Alignment that is stable to align the spatial orientation and lock the clearance cube. The base alignment should be used to "find the part" and then build your measured/constructed features from there.