New Coaxiality

[[Ja...]]

Is anyone else having trouble with Coaxiality using the new GD&T? The list of features doesn’t populate at all, nothing, nada. Using the old GD&T works fine. Wondering if others are having trouble or if it’s just mine.

[[Ja...]]

I know in the 2018 ASME standard it urges you to use something other than Coaxiality but it hasn’t been removed. Has Zeiss removed its’ functionality because of that? I discovered I can make it functional again if I change it from ASME to Loose.

[[Ri...]]

Correct - Concentricity/Coaxiality are no longer supported by ASME, so they are non-functional in the new engine if your set to ASME. Either switch to Loose, or use Position instead. 

[[Ja...]]

To a certain point I can understand why the committee wants us to use position. However now I have to wonder how Calypso determines the results. When you ask for position, doesn't it just give you the location of the features' origin? It doesn't account for the fact that the other end of the feature is pointed in a slightly different direction, right? When dealing with long features, this could make a big difference. So you'd have to add something like Total Runout to the report in addition to the position to get a better picture of what's going on, right? Or maybe add Profile? But either one of those two still doesn't tell you what the axis relationship is. They only tell you how much form error there is in relationship to the axis. Just seems easier to use Coaxiality and be done with it - It's also more representative of the intent. Glad Zeiss left us the Loose option.

[[Ri...]]

Incorrect. If you measure position of a circle, then yes you would just be looking at the center point location, but Calypso measures a true 3d Position on 3d features like Planes, Cylinder, Cones - so the axis line is verified for position. 

You even get a nice plot for it. 🙂

[[Ja...]]

Ok. Interesting. Thanks.