Let PC-DMIS store some setting/files on a network so they can be accessed from different machines / PC-DMIS installations.

I'm talking about settings/files like: 

• usrprobe.dat
• MaterialCoefficients.xml
• xxx.MSExml (StrategyEditor)
• MessageBoxOptions.dat
• The User Interface (Icons and so on)
• Colors of the edit window
• Colors of the features
• and many more

Having many machines and many pc-dmis installs is a pain to maintain which costs hours.

Having a central settings directory on the network would save a lot of time.

When programming True Location dimensions (FCFLOC), i would really love to turn off the DF (diameter) setting by default instead of turning it off at every instance.

This could be a setting in the settings list at the (F5) settings editor.

it would be nice to either manually assign, or automatically attach, surfaces in a scan set that can be displayed graphically when analyzing a scan set. sometimes when scan sets are dense the arrows make it easy to see the deviation, but the actual surfaces that are measured/not measured can be more difficult to determine. Could the surfaces also be highlighted as shown in the attachment? Presentation1.pdf

The idea is to make the setup on ''solidworks'' and import all the assembly and after select the part to inspect. 

the goal is to make a colision detection with the jigs and correct move point to avoid collision. 

thanks

Make it easy for the user to have access to all axis data inside the geometric tolerance command via variables.

We used to have the option to write "FCFLOC1.X.MEAS" while this syntax still works it only works if just one feature is selected inside the geometric tolerance command.

The new syntax is "FCFLOC1.SEGMENT[1].FEATURE[1].MEAS" while we can change the feature number to get the different measurement values there is no possibility to get the axis data of the features.

My proposal is to let the user add the axis letter(s) before the ".MEAS" or ".DEV" to indicate which axis he wants extracted. If no letter is indicated the syntax behaves as before.

The syntax should work with all available axis letters not only the ones shown on the report.

Examples:
"FCFLOC1.SEGMENT[1].FEATURE[2].X.MEAS"
"FCFLOC2.SEGMENT[1].FEATURE[5].Y.DEV"
"FCFLOC3.SEGMENT[1].FEATURE[3].PA.DEV"

Want backwards compatibility with Xact measure for GD&T. I have hundreds of programs that would need to be reviewed. I'm in a regulated industry and can just imagine the chaos that would happen with changing to the new scheme. I appreciate the effort and improvements in the update to the new scheme. However, the costs and headaches involved in ensuring that older programs will provide the same results are going to hold us back. I have gotten around updating previous release updates by arguing that the changes are relatively minor and are mainly programming aids.   This is a major change.   

Other alternative would be a way to not allow Xact measurement routines to not run at all.

Late to the party and realize it's probably not possible but still....

By showing both it gives a good indication of how angled the cylinder may be.

I suggest the software recognizes the color of the surfaces the points are applied to.

When we create dimentions, instead of adding the tollerance for each point (or group of points), we select a color code (that has been sorted out by our engenieering department) and the tolerances are applied considering the CAD surface color and which tolerance that color represents on my color code.

Allow to change the number of exported decimal places independent of the report (see attached picture).

Or.. if this is too much to change -> force the excel export to always export at 6/7 (mm/inch) decimals.

This would allow to have an easy to read PDF/Print but still retain all the Data in the Excel Export.

At the moment if the PDF/Print is set to 3 decimals the export is also just 3 decimals.

This leads to PDF/Prints that are out of tolerance (shown red) but exports that are shown as in tolerance (wrongly)

For reference: I'm using PC-DMIS 2020 R2 SP8. 

I've been seeing the E modifier next to dimensions in recent drawings released to the ISO 14405-1 specification. When I go to look at the report to see what the two measurements (LP and GN) look like for a shaft, it appears that the lower limit is the only one that has been assigned a modifier (E) when it's clear that the upper limit was evaluated with the LP modifier and the lower limit was evaluated with the GN modifier.

My issue with the report is: it's not explicitly clear which modifier is being used. This isn't an issue for your average metrologist/CMM programmer, but to the outsider, it can be problematic and cause some confusion.

Can we have an update to the report so that when the E modifier is used, the report clearly states which modifier was used to evaluate the upper/lower limits of a shaft/hole?

I can easily work around this by reporting two separate dimensions with the appropriate modifiers for each, but I shouldn't have to do this.