Spatial rotation to multiple planes C2018

[[Lu...]]

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

 

 

 

 

[[Ma...]]

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

[[Ri...]]

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. 

[[No...]]

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, 2025

[[Lu...]]

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 : )

[[Ri...]]

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. 

[[Lu...]]

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

 

 

 

[[Ri...]]

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