"inspection software doesn't follow the standard"
"inspection software doesn't follow the standard"
(OP)
In another thread, Jim said "... inspection software doesn't follow the standard in most cases." I also heard this from an instructor and another individual who leads 'Quality' for a large medical instrument company. They both agreed that one brand of software does the best job meeting ASME Y14.5-2009. A major issue seemed to be with RAME and UAME. Do others agree that RAME and UAME are the major issues with the software and, if not, what are other the major issues?
Peter Truitt
Minnesota





RE: "inspection software doesn't follow the standard"
Which thread is the comment from?
I read this one quickly, not sure if it.
thread1103-304751: How to find Unrelated Acutal Mating Envelope of a FOS?
Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: "inspection software doesn't follow the standard"
RE: "inspection software doesn't follow the standard"
Software: Smart Profile
Peter Truitt
Minnesota
RE: "inspection software doesn't follow the standard"
I would agree that the treatment of RAME's is a major issue with many softwares. Most or all softwares can find the UAME of a feature reasonably well - it's a relatively simple algorithm. But many softwares are not able to calculate a RAME (Related Actual Mating Envelope) properly. This is critical for the proper treatment of secondary and tertiary datum features, to allow the software to arrive at the same result that a functional gage would.
There are other issues as well, perhaps in another post.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca