Programming from - Feature or Characteristic list

[[Ri...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Yes. Better would be the feature has to not be referenced by any feature, characteristic, or PCM code.

[[Mi...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Please sign in to view this quote.

Here are two more reasons why Characteristics is my choice. It's nice to have options either way.

[[SH...]]

First time ,I see a hundred rating 😮

[[Da...]]

I don't see where running from the characteristic list can be anything but slower. As mentioned by others, you program the feature list so that the machine has less travel from 1 feature to the next. I program my characteristic list to that the report follows the drawing views so that you can follow. I do understand the original comment that when running from the feature list, the characteristic list does not populate until the program completes. But to me, this is minor to the run time saved. Remember, if you are looking for only certain characteristics to be reported, you can select those and only run what is needed, but still have the order of run from the feature list

calypso lists.png

[[Is...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Actually, running from Characteristics is faster, but looks like is not popular to deal with the execution order using this list.

Features vs Characteristics list.7z

[[Me...]]

So Israel, your saying this video is a physical run of a part. I need to bubble prints and report as such. Characteristics would be faster?

[[Is...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Physical running or not is not relevant due to you can manipulate the execution order according to your needs (I must accept that from Characteristic list this is more difficult).
However Characteristic list is faster because the software computes it faster.

I will quote myself again:

Please sign in to view this quote.

[[Ke...]]

It sounds like the correct answer is "It depends" 🤣
Shorter programs that do not require multiple stylus systems and styli are likely to run faster using Characteristics, since (as Israel stated) the computation time is faster (I'm guessing that this is because, it is processing as it runs); whereas, longer programs (some of my larger programs take over an hour to run) are more likely to run faster using Features, as the time saved from probe changes exceeds the potential time saved via processing.

[[Me...]]

Still don't see it. Again, since I bubble my dimensions, there is no way I could get my machine to run around constrained to the characteristics and report faster than via the feature run.
I watched the video. Neither one of my machines can probe that fast.
Israel, put up a video of the machine running and physically probing to show the time difference.

[[Jo...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

This is "flat earth" territory here. I think most people program grouped by probe, and area of part. If you run in feature order ALL the required data is gathered and it computes the characteristics at the end. If you run in characteristics order it must run around the part to gather the required data "right now" per characteristic. The possible exception to this is Mini Plans

[[Me...]]

Thanks John.
Oh no! Another round earth person.

[[Is...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

naa, the mess you make with the machine movements can be optimised not depending of the execution list selected

[[Mi...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Yes, if the part is still in-process. We may be able to re-cut it while the job is still set up, and re-inspect it afterwards. I can see an argument to be made for doing it either way. I'm just glad we are given an option.

[[Er...]]

I would say running the program how it was programmed would be most efficient. If you build the program from Characteristics, it would mostly follow the order of the features and could be faster. If you build the program from features, running it from features list would be most efficient. I find it faster for me, to program from features personally, and then we run the program from features to optimize the run.

[[Ja...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Well put, Eric.

[[Ma...]]

Can a characteristic be masked using PCM?

eg.

if Variable == true then
maskCharacteristic("Hole 1")
endif

Obviously this isn't the correct code, but is there any commands that would work as such?

[[To...]]

I prefer to program by features by stylus, i.e. with -Z stylus active, I extract/create all of the features that I want o measure with it. I change to +Y stylus and extract/create all of the features, and so on. I group all of the features by stylus and then group those groups by stylus system.. And when I go into Features Settings Editor, the group names show up and make it easy for me to verify the correct stylus is in the right group. Or, when I am reviewing Clearance Planes. Below is an example of my system.

program layout.jpgprogram layout2.jpgAnnotation 2020-09-10 082700.pngAnnotation 2020-09-10 082641.png

[[61...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

SAME! Look how organized that is.... if only every program I came across looked like this! 🤣

Although my end product looks the same as yours, I usually extract/create all of my features with no regard to the stylus I'm going to use, and then go and apply them afterwards in Measurement Plan Editor.

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Thanks.

I should have stated, that if I am "disciplined", I pre-select the stylus before extracting the feature so the correct clearance plane will generally be selected but 9 times out of 10, I totally space out and forget about my stylus selection and have to correct it afterwards. Good practice to review those properties prior to first program execution anyhow. 😃

[[Cl...]]

I bet you have all your canned goods in your cupboard organized by size and rotated with the labels facing out. 😃

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Are you serious? lol I'm 2 amazon boxes away from being on the next episode of "Hoarders"....LMAO

[[Cl...]]

🤣

What you are doing is absolutely the way to go. I created a "CMM Programing Best Practices"
document that details exactly how a program is to be created down to the smallest of detail.

[[Sc...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Clarke,

Would you be willing to share your "CMM programming best practices" document either here or by PM? 🙂

Scott

[[Cl...]]

Sure, I can't share the actual document, but I can
share the contents. I'll sent it to you tomorrow.

[[Ni...]]

I am new to programming and using CMMs but ever since seeing a program go back and forth to measure a part, I've decided it would be best to organize it and measure all the features that are next to each other.
I have it so everything on X+ gets measure then it moves on and measures everything on Y- and so on. Especially with our longer parts. It hurts to see it travel back and forth.
And since most of our parts require different probes, I organize them trough that as well.
Imagine the head going to pick up one probe system to measure a plane and then going back to the rack to grab another probe system to measure another plane. 😱