Hexagon Measurement SystemsNo matter what Hexagon measurement equipment or software you use, we want to hear your ideas and suggestions on how we can improve.
Thanks for your assistance in helping us shape the future. |
|
Program Single Block Mode
It would be nice to see an addition of a 'single block' mode, similarly to CNC machines where you can step through each line/block of code one at a time. This would be good for proving out program or certain sections of programs. This would be better than having to CTRL+E each line to make sure things dont crash.
Adding a single block toggle to the execution popup window while executing would have the user click the play button/green button on the jogbox to advance each block.
Add UPR as smart parameter in the measurement strategy editor
As more and more customers are asking us to scan (with a probe) all features, they also got their standards for using the filters in scanning. In those standards, they also ask for a specific UPR which relates to the current diameter. For example, Ø8 and smaller require a UPR setting of 15. Ø8-Ø25 require UPR 50 etc.
I'd like to add this as a smart parameter in the Measurement Strategy Editor to make sure we also use the correct settings.
AUTO PLANE RINGS
I would like to see an option where we can adjust the distance between multiple rings when checking a radial auto plane. We of course have the option to adjust the size of the rings but, to my knowledge, don't have the option to adjust the distance between.
Comment Box Update!
I think the Comment box could use some help. I've been using PCDMIS since the 2014 version and its basically untouched in 10 years. As an offline programmer, the comments are sometimes the only way I can communicate to the inspection operators.
I have seen some people on here asking for Font Types and Colors, and i think that's a really great idea!
I would also like to see more ALT codes translated correctly to the comment box, or maybe add more than the four symbols at the bottom of the Comment Text Box. GD&T uses so many different symbols to communicate there should be a library to choose from when typing out or operator comments.
Even as I type this out, I'm looking at the options i have to edit my text and I would love to see something similar to this woven into the comment section of PCDMIS. (see below)

Possibility to disable automatic highlighting of the feature on which the cursor is located
There should be an option to disable automatic highlighting of a feature on which the cursor is placed.
When programming, the large shadow of the highlight can interfere. Especially with single circles this is a disadvantage.
At the moment there is only the possibility to change the color of the highlight.
Graphic Analysis View
Add the ability to turn off previous graphic analysis views / show one graphic analysis view at a time. Adding graphic analysis views makes the snapshot for the report cluttered and hard to read. We should be able to disable / enable graphic analysis views on dimensions in the snapshot and/or recall a viewset to "reset" the graphic view.
Inspect Slideshow - Have the ability to assign more colors
It would be good to be able to have more then just Red for failed dimension in the slideshow for inspect. I would like to see a minimum of 3 Colors. Green-passed, Yellow Warning (maybe a settable percentage), and Red Failed.
PC-DMIS restarts after n- runs
When running a palette with Inspect, it often happens that PC-DMIS slows down over time and finaly crashes.
Can a way be added, that Inspect resp. PC-DMIS is restared after n-runs?
Evaluation of Envelope Modifier (ISO 14405-1) In the Report
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.
Customer support service by UserEcho
