[Lu...] Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 How to align spatial rotation to multiple parallel planes? This is how I do it, but it isn't the quickest way, is it? 1. measure space points at the planes, sometimes using a pattern 2. create offset points by "Recall one feature" point by point manually and adding offset value 3. create a "DatumPlane" by "Recall" of all the offset points (I get a suggestion to use "Recall feature points" instead but I can't use theoretical offset points this way) 4. Align Spatial Rotation to the DatumPlane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ma...] Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 Wouldn't this way carry evaluation error due using previously defined axis? Wouldn't be better to use symmetries of planes if you need to compensate many planes ( more than 3 points )? If you need it as a datum, then using surface feature would be better ( to carry more of measured points ). Then use bestfit on that feature 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 First off - I would never recommend to define the Nominal Geometry with Actual Geometry, and then especially use that in the Base Alignment. Nominals should not be constantly changing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[No...] Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 (edited) I've used this method for many years across 3 Zeiss software packages and it works, but I don't know if it conforms to any standard. But you definitely need to iterate (loop) your base alignment a few times when using this. Edited October 31 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Lu...] Posted October 31 Author Share Posted October 31 Please sign in to view this quote. I collect ~30 points. Best fit is an idea. Way quicker! Thank you. The drawback is that I can't get a flatness if the join plane but there's other solution Please sign in to view this quote. Why? I need Z actuals and I don't tolerate the results Please sign in to view this quote. As long as it works and gives reasonable results, it's good : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted October 31 Share Posted October 31 I'm just saying that it's probably not the best idea to have your nominals constantly changing. There's no reason why you should use the actual as the nominal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Lu...] Posted Monday at 07:16 AM Author Share Posted Monday at 07:16 AM Please sign in to view this quote. Thank you for you input When I use getNominal instead of getActual, the actual value of offset Point equals nominal value of original Point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted Tuesday at 01:12 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 01:12 PM Please sign in to view this username. Yes - you should set the getActual formula on the Actual side of the feature, not the nominal. They should be treated independently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in