Section Cuts should automatically inherit the active alignment

[[Ti...]]

While I deal with threaded and non-threaded parts, I cannot imagine a scenario where I would want to section cut a part without attaching an alignment to the section cut?  How would it make sense to section cut a part without an alignment? If you cut something in real life with a wire cutter by hand or with an EDM you must make sure the part is aligned!

So why is the section cut not auto flagged to create an alignment? Since it is not currently, it affects the auto flagging of lines and circles afterward. This seems like common sense to me.

I'm exhaused fixing old program that were not done right, and the section cuts are always causing problems.

 

Your explanation is probably going to be to set the alignment flag after you do the section cut, but 75% of the people I have trained have failed to do this after 2 months and it does nothing but caused problems. There is zero reason a section cut should not inherit the active alignment...if not then why are you in that alignment when creating it?

 

Edited March 4

[[Be...]]

Hi,

i already explained it to you, why we have chosen this strategy in the past: It depends to which customers you talk to and what they want to achieve with the section cut and what they expect what happens with this section cut if you switch the alignment.

If we would change this behavior now other customers would complain. These customers usually want to inspect the section cut in two or even more alignments, sometimes they want to create an alignment based on these sections via iteration steps (like a cmm would/could do it).

I already explained the workaround to you via a 'User defined measuring principle' and I hope that this works?

Nevertheless, I link your wish to an existing ticket but I can't tell you if or when we realize this ticket.

Regards,

Bernd

 

[[Ti...]]

Please sign in to view this username.

You offered a 'simple' example.  I'm assuming or hope they are setting the required alignment flag manually in multiple alignments? Otherwise, I don't know how they are getting repeatable results.

 

So I'm guessing what you have done is not set the required alignment flag automatically so that the automotive and aero customers then are required by their own procedures to set this flag themselves. If I'm correct then they are setting the flag manually and not leaving it 'unchecked'.  I would have to see a direct example of how you can leave it unchecked and get repeatable results with multiple attempts at creating a section cut.

 

If my assumption is that they prefer it unchecked by default, but they are then checking it later, it seems to me why not allow it to be checked automatically? Either way they will have to manually check the required alignment flag.  So if they are manually checking it afterwards, why not just make it set to auto check based on the active alignment?

 

I understand there are fields that may want something different, but I guess my question is are there fields in which they let the section cut remain unchecked? That would make no sense to me.

 

I stopped doing user defined stuff because we initially were going to 2022, now we are going to 2023, but my IT dept is making things rather difficult so for the time being I removed all our user defined principles. I'm training a new person to program and he is constantaly, missing section cut required alignment flags, then when he goes back and sets them, all the features thereafter don't get the flag and our reports generate with greyed out results.