Checking a base alignment

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Peter, I didn't see your post until after I posted my last one. I totally forgot about that. I'll look into that, as well. Appears that it might save several steps.

[[Th...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Verified that the stoplight reports the same stylus coordinates using this method as it does directly set to the CMM axes, so I assume this would be the simplest solution. Simpler than what I'd suggested last page, since there's no need to generate a base system off of an empty program. Peter's suggesting of directly evaluating the feature angle to the alignment zero is what I'd intended, as well.

Please sign in to view this quote.

And it's a moot point now, but the base system here is stored the moment you finish defining it, i.e. once you click OK, so as long as you've named it whatever makes sense, there's no need to run the program or use the Save Alignment utility.

[[To...]]

1) Created new measurement plan (on cadcube)
2) Created actual BA with Plane on top, 2d Line on front and Point on right side
3) Created blank Secondary Alignment (Alignment1) and set to CMM System
4) Create 3d Line1 (+X) Theoretical Feature using Base alignment (A1 0.000 / A2 0.000)
5) Create 3d Line2 (+X) Theoretical Feature using Alignment1 (A1 0.000 / A2 0.000)
6) Create Angle between Features 3d Line1 and 2.
7) Added Post Condition to Angle between Features1 using formula getActual("Angle between Features1").actual>rad(0.1)
8) Added additional characteristics after Angle between Features1
9) Executed program.
10) If Angle between Features1 was greater than 0.1°, program would stop.
11) If Angle between Features1 was less than 0.1°, program would continue.

I think we have a winner.....

[[To...]]

Thanks to everyone that replied. A special thanks to Thomas and Peter. I love this forum.

[[Th...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Interesting idea using theoretical 3D lines as the features to compare. I assume that by using the angle between features as your evaluated characteristic, you avoid having to account for positive/negative angle relative to the alignment axis?

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Yes, the angle is always positive. I'm sure there are other characteristics that would work, I just started with angle between features. However, I did consider the + or - when I first wrote the formula. I said, "For now, I won't worry about that." Was pleasantly surprised when I discovered the result was always positive. I suppose that will cause the operator some grief due not knowing which way to turn the part. So, I may have to use a different characteristic.