qual è l'allineamento iterativo rispetto all'allineamento geometrico?

Probably one of the most obnoxious and useless prompts is the ""Measure All iter align features now?"" It comes up every time you modify a feature related to an iterative, plus one more for every other instance of an iterative alignment in your program. So hypothetically, if you have 3 iterative alignments in your program, and you modify a single point in one of them, you'll receive three prompts,

Not to mention, the prompt does come up inexplicably sometimes. So sometimes when you're hammering through the also obnoxious, barrage of prompts, you get when you change a feature like "Do you want to update measured values", "Do want to make this the default ID", "Update dependent commands", where you may swapping back and forth between selecting "Yes", "No", in rapid fire succession because you're trying to get work done, let's through a command in there that throws the machine into automatic motion regardless of where the probe head actually go inspect something on the other side of the part, smash into said part, and break a four or five grand probe. Splendid... just great...

Additional view settings such as adding a delay to measured vision features. 

Ex.  I measure a feature, then for a x.xx seconds (whatever I choose) the live view pauses accordingly to show the measured hits.  An additional toggle of accepted and unaccepted hits would also be nice.

With version 2019 the help (F1) is accessible trough the browser. My experience is very bad. The search is slow, opening is slow too. I just can not use it, it is unusable!!! Make it fast and simple like it was before.

Currently, when executing profiles I've noticed it will sometimes take small segments of arcs, tiny segments, one at a time. 

It would enhance the run speed of my programs if it could execute all edges visible. 

(Side note: I've also noticed that the scan is much slower than competing products, customers have said things like "I thought It'd be faster" and my boss has even said "I remember XXX Brand being much faster, but maybe I'm wrong")

Not many users are aware of the simultaneous evaluation option and tend to dimension separately and thus getting the benefit of the material bonus individually rather than collectively. Could it be a possible if a feature has been dimensioned using the same DRF callout we warn the user that these should be treated as a group i.e. simultaneous evaluation.

When calibrating an analogue probe, due to the required number of hits (25) it can take a long time. To alleviate this reducing the pre-hit / Retract to say 0.5mm will improve the throughput. This however only works if the tip position is known. If using DCC+DCC calibration could we not have an additional field so the tip position is found with a user-defined larger pre-hit / Retract and then reverts to the smaller user-defined  pre-hit / retract post finding tip.

Create an API platform that is friendly to programmers (non-pcdmis code) to access and manipulate information and processes in PC°DMIS. (Example: https://www.pcdmisforum.com/forum/pc-dmis-enterprise-metrology-software/pc-dmis-code-samples/22927-pcdmis-automation-with-visual-csharp-2010-express)

This would allow companies, labs, and hexagon the ability to integrate with more softwares.  

Vision Probing is great (for the most part).  However it would be nice to see a smoother transition when programming between two dissimilar machines or even CMM-V.   Problems with settings translating between different style light configurations can pose some strange difficulites.  Mostly settings getting lost or hidden. 

Example:  Right now I have a single tier ring light, my customer has a triple tiered ring light.  I write programs where in sections I turned the ring light off - when the program is transported to their system - it is on.  I am told this is because their setup is different. 

If this were a probing Cmm I would simply select a different module/tip etc and move on - right in the probe toolbox.