DATUM SHIFT OR MMR ON DATUMS

[[Ti...]]

There is a problem with the software in my opinion when is comes to datum shift.  When you apply MMR to a cylinder similar to what is described here:

https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/5042-mmc-vs-mmb/?do=findComment&comment=56526

 

If the cylinder is the only datum, the MMR application works fine. but if you apply a clocking/rotational datum as a secondary datum the software fails and says that any subsequent datums must have a material requirement size stated as well(see imaged). This is not true. You can allow for a primary datum to shift while being constrained in rotation.  If you disagree imagine hard gaging a rotor in the link above with a flat clocking side. The flat would only allow for datum shift in two directions just not rotaionally.

When I apply a MMR condition to the clocking mid plane, I still get a violation of virtual condition error.

 

I probably need to escalate this and also Zeiss inspect needs to also allow us to apply MMC conditions to non-features of size. This is a problem for us using he software everyday. PCDMIS allows for you to create bonus for a non-feature of size positional callout and you can do it in Calypso it seems:

https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/21284-mmc-bonus-on-a-non-feature-of-size/#comment-121536

 

I'm not trying to yell at you guys at GOM, I just want to make you aware of what we need in the field....I need to be able to apply bonus to non-feature of sizes for terribly GDT callouts that I see everyday, and I need to be able to use datum shift when I have a clocking datum as a secondary datum. With .03mm tolerances I need all the datum shift I can get!

 

Any btw...I don't like the fact that when you use Datum shift or MMR on a datum you are required to use GDT as your measurement principle...from my understanding this re-measures the datum features using max inscribed for and ID and then Min Circum as the OD and for how small our features are this is unstable. I would prefer we can still use geometry and stick to the method we created the datum as is which I like LSQ as is.

---here is the documentation on the max ins and min circ unstable issue at hexagon:  (search for the term 'unstable')

https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/2021.2/en/helpcenter/mergedProjects/core/geometric_tolerances/Evaluating_Size_with_the_Geometric_Tolerance_Command.htm

 

 

Edited January 21

[[Ti...]]

 

 

I just recreated this part from the ASME standard and GOM doesn't like the addition of Datum B to the AB datum reference frame. Here is a situation that you could hard gage a bore at this parts MMC size with a stop on the bottom for PLN B. Now you can jiggled that part around if the cylinder is made smaller until it is in line with the cyl A axis, and you can get the distance from datum B dialed in. But the software doesn't like this DRF setup for some reason.

[[na...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Tim, I guess you tried already, sometimes Inspect wants the tertiary datum to produce result, even if not needed.