When programming offline I would like the naming conventions to more customizable. Example...If I select to measure a diameter that is .750 then I would like PC-DMIS to automatically assign that circle to be named CIR_750_1 and the next time (whenever that may be) a circle is selected with that same nominal diameter it would come up as CIR_750_2. Since I try to program with the least amount of movements in between features (path optimization) I don't always measure all of the Ø.750's at once. Just an example...Usually I would measure the Ø.750, then the Ø.129, then the second Ø.750. So I would like PC-DMIS to automatically assign (with the help of ID Setup)  the circles as CIR_750_1, CIR_129_1 and then CIR_750_2. Hope this makes sense...

Hi guys

it would be nice to be able to make certain regions transparent.  For example: fixture model transparent, workpiece visible

have a nice day

In a lot of instances an operator or Inspector wants a simple classification if a part is either good or Bad. Currently we can add the code to test for any out of tolerance features and display a report label programatically but this can be complex to a user. In most cases they wish to know of the part is any good or not, by having a PASS/FAIL label the inspector / operator does not have to review the report in all its detail. For Example

Would like to see a graceful default way to handle Find Hole failures.  

For example the operator puts the probe in the approximate middle of the feature and lets PC DMIS try again and/or quick minimal manual feature measurement to temporarily reset the theoriticals. Probably would have to have a surface touch as part of the solution in case the surface isn't quite where it's expected.

Add another parameter to appropriate Auto Features that sets the size of the Find Hole search area.  I know it can be done other ways but having your commonly used tools right at hand makes for a good work flow. 

ALLOW DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT ARE NORMAL TO A SELECTED PLANE.

Often there are tools in auto features that are quite useful.  Often enough I spend time manually converting the coordinates of a measured feature into an autofeature to get the benefits it prescribes.

We can control the angles of the hits for the circle, it would be nice to independently control the angle of the sample hits

The all new Updater should be able to list all versions of Pc-Dmis that is installed on that particular computer not just the newest version

I've seen competing software that has no problem with edges I have problems with in PC°DMIS.

Whenever I'm on a vision project, I always struggle to get edge parameters correct until lots of trial.

Nearest Nominal and Matching Edge are sometimes very amazing and work quite well, but often there are program parameters and changes that are not feasible with those tools (at least not with out lots of work, meaning if I quote for the struggle I lose the work anyway).

Can we develop a plan for implementing better algorithms?  I can, and possibly the rest of the community, can submit difficult tasks to measure and submit them for review.