Jump to content

Make this make sense


---
 Share

Recommended Posts

spacer.pngspacer.pngspacer.png

 

Position is different if I pick individual datums vs base alignment. They both should be the same? Also if I calculate position, it should not be 0.4073 ( 2√(0.0843²+0.0167²)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should have selected: Plane A, 3d Line1, Circle B - i don't want to use this type definition of an alignment. I rather use normal alignment, where is realy shown where is origin.

Unless you have not fully defined alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I remember seeing a post not long ago talking about the difference between

two alignments using the exact Datum's, as in this instance.

I thought it had something to do with Evaluation Method for Datum - 

LSQ Feature

Outer tangential feature

ISO 5459

ISO 5459.GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Print called position to A and B only. So lets say if print called to A only, do I still have to filled out and put in B and C?

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would fill all three with same feature for only A.

Or do your research about values. Like intersectioned circle, there you will have really one point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is more confusing than anything. If print called for position to AB and I can't just plug in A and B. Depending on combinations of base alignment and/or A and B, I get like four different results.

Edited
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see what the result would be if you created a secondary alignment with A&B and evaluated to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

When there is a position callout that is not fully constrained, a sub alignment should not be used in the position characteristic's evaluation. If you look below the sub alignment's name you see (Base Alignment) which means any open slot gets automatically filled in by what was used in the base alignment, making it fully constrained. That's why you see the same result. Attached a Zeiss document explaining this.

If the print callout is only to -AB- then you must only enter datums -A- and -B- in the position characteristic. No need for the 3DLine.

Also, when you create your base alignment, the features are evaluated as LSQ. Which is what you want. It's the most stable, repeatable evaluation. When you enter your features in the position characteristic, they should be evaluated as Outer Tangential for Planes and Max Inscribe for ID's and Min Circumscribe for OD's. Hence why you would see the difference.

Align_vs_Datum_Ref_Frame.pdf

  • Like! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not define enough datums to fully constrain calypso will give nonsense numbers.  Datums consume all possible constraints as they are applied.  (If datum A was a sphere, datum B would constrain nothing!) 

In its defense, the new GDT engine in 2024 features will show you an exclamation point when left unrestrained and it is GREAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

Please sign in to view this username.

 Source - Earth. 🤣

Edited
  • Like! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...