We would like the ability to break a scan into multiple elements that may have different tolerances or requirements for each.

The option to extract individual point data from auto features, so that I can report xyz values for a single point.

As a user of PC-DMIS, I like to see the used qualification parameters (Prehit, Retract, TouchSpeed, MoveSpeed and NumberOfHits) in the results file. This will help to analyze if a setting was not aligned with the used parameters in a measurement routine which can cause significant deviations in the measurement results.

While hardcoding things in PC DMIS, we often run into "line length error" issues and have to break things up into multiple-multiple-multiple feature-sets. Can you please consider eliminating the line error issue if at all possible..or..giving us a lot more room for lines? 

If I can CONSTRUCT a plane with 5000points and see all of them listed in my edit window why can't we do the same with featuresets/while hardcoding? 

Thanks for your time. 

The Idea is to program an Auto Circle and RT is used to position the RT and take the hit on a circle,move RT take next hit, move RT tae next hit. This is a request of MTU.

This is an important function and will help all blisk manufactors which use PC-DMIS Scanning with and without rotary table. Then it is possible to calculate the biggest Diameter on a blisk.

Too many times has PC-DMIS crashed while creating an offline program, I have worked with multiple other CMM software's where they provide many options for keeping what you have worked on and not loose a days work.

if PC-DMIS could enter a setting to auto save at different intervals like 5, 10 or 30 minutes would help a programmer from loosing much work, trying to remember to save it is not always achievable.

Our customers asking  for the possibility to use unequal
tolerance zone in surface and line profile dimensions referring to ISO
1101. This modifier is still missing in 2018 R2. Please remember that
the calculation of the tolerance values is different in ISO compared to
ASME.

Just like the header says, I'd prefer to be able to have the option for max/min result for an evaluation in the actual evaluation dialog, instead of having it under settings. Keeping it under settings is not very intuitive and has a far more userfriendly home in the evaluation/location/dimension dialogs.

Add more rubust customization, as currently you can really only customize background colors to easily distinguish between different functions at a glance. I suggest adding more functionality, specifically in the actual text color, whether it is the standard text (black only as of now) or editable fields (blue only as of now). or just add the option for a dark mode that would basically invert the text/background colors so you dont have to have to have bright colored backgrounds in order to still have the text show up. 

Similar to the dark mode in Visual Studio...