48 Replies Latest reply on Jun 22, 2017 5:51 PM by David Nelson

    What still needs to be dimensioned?

    Eric Eubanks

      flag.PNG I have demensioned everything I could think of, but it still says under defined. Is there an easy way to see which dimensions are not defined?

        • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
          John Stoltzfus

          Did you draw your shape in the Drawing file??

          • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
            Eric Eubanks

            One more question about my drawing. Does it look professional? Is it easy for you to understand? My drawing got rejected by my teacher for that and I had to redo it.

              • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                John Stoltzfus

                Judging other peoples work is subjective - did your teacher tell you what needs to be improved??

                  • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                    J. Mather

                    I would only agree to about 10% or less subjective.

                    I use about 60 standardized rules governed by ANSI/ASME in evaluating drawings. 

                    As I write this, one of my students is competing in the SkillsUSA National Leadership Conference.

                    The rules are understood with enough certainty that I have had a student win the contest 3 out of the past 4 years and expect my student to win this year.  

                     

                    The drawing posted in question is very poor quality.

                    Test #1 of a drawing is give it to someone not familiar with the design and can they make or model it without having to ask questions.

                    In this case, I think no. 

                      • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                        John Stoltzfus

                        It was much easier saying subjective then "I'm ignorant to really how it should look" - I know how I do my drawings and I know I haven't had a teacher like yourself, so I'm just a hick from the sticks and try to make the drawings a work of Art, but that's also subjective, so I really don't know and I can't know what I don't know, but I know one thing - I appreciate every one of your comments and I wish you would have been my teacher....

                    • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                      Dan Pihlaja

                      Eric Eubanks wrote:

                       

                      One more question about my drawing. Does it look professional? Is it easy for you to understand? My drawing got rejected by my teacher for that and I had to redo it.

                      You need to think about how it is going to be manufactured.

                       

                      If it is being machined, then inside corners need a radius for the tool (it is rare that a tool has a sharp corner....and if it does, then it doesn't stay sharp for long).

                       

                      Another thing to think about is the limits to the measuring system.  If the person measuring is using calipers or a shadow profiler thingy (can't remember the name off the top of my head), then it is a good idea to dimension the features that aren't critical with that in mind (your chamfer at the top will be a bear to measure as an example).

                       

                      Also, you need to think about where dimensions start and where they end and the stack up between them.

                       

                      Using ordinate dimensions takes care of that for you, but you also need to be aware of what is critical to what.

                       

                      An example: If you have a 2 dowel holes (1 primary and 1 secondary) in part1 that position a part2 onto part1 and you also have 4 threaded holes for mounting part2 onto part1, then you should probably have the primary dowel hole as your 0 point for that pattern of 6 holes (depending on the situation).

                      • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                        Dan Golthing

                        Eric, a drawing is not only a technical document, it to many of us is a piece of art.

                         

                        If you look at the preview of your drawing above, it looks like crap (no offence, you are here to learn and get ahead of all the slobs who don't care).

                         

                        Look how the part is crammed into the middle of the drawing format.

                         

                        Wouldn't this look better with the part horizontal and somewhat even space around it?

                         

                        That's the first thing in a drawing is how well laid out are all the views.  I had one employee that could never get it.  He made giant views all crammed together and crammed against the borders.  I kept saying, shrink them down and get some air around them.  Let's just say he doesn't work for me anymore.

                         

                        you should be able to look at the drawing in an unfocused manner and it should look aesthetically pleasing.  Views are easy to scale, rotate, and move until the drawing looks pleasing.  Then work on the technical aspects.

                         

                        You've got a dangling dimension.

                         

                        You are dimensioning in ISO.  If that's your intention, then that's OK, but most in the US like ANSI.

                         

                        I don't like placing dimensions inside the part unless 100% necessary (your 125 deg dim)

                         

                        You shouldn't run leaders through the part unless necessary:  your 5.50 dimension

                         

                        Your lower radius should change the leader.  That's very messed up.

                         

                        You should have three views and an iso view (what's that little view on the lower right?)

                         

                        the overall dimensioning is very inaccurate and without purpose.

                         

                        As I mentioned, drawings are both a technical document (science) as well as a work of art (if one chooses).

                         

                        It will take years to nail it.

                          • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                            Dan Pihlaja

                            Dan Golthing wrote:

                             

                            Eric, a drawing is not only a technical document, it to many of us is a piece of art.

                             

                             

                             

                            As I mentioned, drawings are both a technical document (science) as well as a work of art (if one chooses).

                             

                            It will take years to nail it.

                             

                            Oh my goodness.....I thought I was the only one!

                             

                            I couldn't agree more!  I hate looking at a drawing that hurts my eyes!

                            • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                              Todd Blacksher

                              1-4KHMGZY wrote:

                               

                              Eric, a drawing is not only a technical document, it to many of us is a piece of art.

                               

                               

                              Glad to know that I am not the only one that feels strongly that a drawing should be aesthetically pleasing . . .

                              Most people never notice the fine details, but you will smile when you see one that was put together with some thought.

                              (I think starting on the board tends to give one a little more appreciation, as you really had to figure it all out before you even started.)

                               

                              Eric Eubanks - It will get easier with practice, and eventually you will get to the point where you can look at a drawing and see what needs to be fixed.

                              Follow J. Mather - He's the teacher that we all wish we had - Just look at the Skills USA results for proof . . .

                              todd

                          • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                            Dan Pihlaja

                            The "under defined" in your drawing is in reference to sketch entities in the drawing.

                             

                            If the only thing that you have in that drawing is that one view with dimensions one it, then I would guess that the "under defined" is referring to your title block sketch lines.  Or there is a sketch line somewhere off screen.

                            • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                              Glenn Schroeder

                              Please don't be discouraged by the length of this list, because I have a lot of respect for you from reading your posts, but you asked.  I'm trying to help you learn, which I believe is what you want also.

                               

                              A.  Placing a dimension inside the model lines is usually frowned on.

                              B.  Try to avoid having dimension lines crossing, but if you have to, there's an option to break extension lines.

                              C.  This dimension has turned that funny color because it's lost its reference to the model.

                              D.  This looks like a random drawing view (maybe a Projected View set to a smaller scale) .  Why is it there?

                              E.  There are several points on this whose position isn't fully defined.  I've only marked two of them, but there are others.  For example, on the top one I marked, where is it vertically in relation to the upper corner of the flag (where does the 3.75 dimension start from)?  This would probably be a good place to use Ordinate Dimensions.  You could use two, one horizontal and one vertical.  For the vertical one, set the zero at the very top point, and then click every point going down (and the outside edge of the radius;  hold down Shift while placing it so it goes to the outside instead of center).  Repeat for the horizontal.  That should fully define each point without the need for any angle dimensions.

                               

                              There may be a couple more, but this should get you started.

                               

                              • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                Glenn Schroeder

                                Eric,

                                 

                                Here's an example of what I meant about using Ordinate Dimensions (and about breaking crossing extension lines).

                                 

                                  • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                    Dan Pihlaja

                                    Here are another couple of examples:

                                     

                                    Although there are certain specifications that are unique to each shop (as an example, I don't put thread class because all of our taps are the same class.  Unless I need it something different, I leave it off).

                                     

                                    There might be other issues with this print, but I think it is a good example of dimensioning scheme based on design intent.

                                      • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                        Steve Calvert

                                        So Dan, you showed me a problem I have with ordinate dimensioning in SW (or at least at my SW2015 version).  Sometimes I'd like to dimension on both top and bottom (or left and right) but in order to do that I have to create 2 0 datums (starting points).  I'd like to see that changed for future updates.

                                         

                                        Now, we all seem to do drawings just a little different.  I try to always use my sketch dimensions, as best that I can, when finishing a drawing.  I know some don't and that's ok.

                                         

                                        Design intent is great...

                                         

                                        Steve C

                                          • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                            Dan Pihlaja

                                            Steve Calvert wrote:

                                             

                                            So Dan, you showed me a problem I have with ordinate dimensioning in SW (or at least at my SW2015 version). Sometimes I'd like to dimension on both top and bottom (or left and right) but in order to do that I have to create 2 0 datums (starting points). I'd like to see that changed for future updates.

                                             

                                            Now, we all seem to do drawings just a little different. I try to always use my sketch dimensions, as best that I can, when finishing a drawing. I know some don't and that's ok.

                                             

                                            Design intent is great...

                                             

                                            Steve C

                                            You can kind of get away with what you want.   You can select the ordinates that you want and then "break alignment" and then drag them to the other side of the part.  They aren't aligned though, you will have to manually align them.

                                             

                                            OR, you can create you 2nd 0 point, and your 2nd set of ordinates, then hide the 2nd 0 point.

                                             

                                            But personally, I like to see the 0 point on both sides if I am dimensioning both sides.   Not having it created a lot of confusion on some large drawings with a lot of detail that we had before.

                                            • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                              Dennis Dohogne

                                              Steve, you can select some of the ordinate dimensions and "Break Alignment" (from the RMB).  This keeps the single datum but allows you to move some of the dimensions for clarity.  Jog is also used in this quick example.

                                            • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                              Gian Flavio Violi

                                              Subjective part of drawings.

                                               

                                              I HATE dimmensions on Isometric views. I just find it really unpleasing, but sometimes they are extremly helpful.

                                               

                                              Regards,

                                              Gf

                                                • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                  Dan Pihlaja

                                                  Gian Flavio Violi wrote:

                                                   

                                                  Subjective part of drawings.

                                                   

                                                  I HATE dimmensions on Isometric views. I just find it really unpleasing, but sometimes they are extremly helpful.

                                                   

                                                  Regards,

                                                  Gf

                                                   

                                                  I only put it there to show the overall size of the part as an easy reference for ordering material.  It is the ONLY time I put dimensions on an isometric view.

                                                   

                                                  There might be a better way using some sort of envelope, but I have never used it.  Would like to learn sometime though.

                                                    • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                      Gian Flavio Violi

                                                      Didn't mean to bash your drawing, just in case. I was just commenting on the "artistic side of drawings" which is subjective.

                                                       

                                                      Actually I agree with you, if the drawing is super loaded with dimmensions I find it better to specify bounding box on the Isometric View.

                                                       

                                                      Regards,

                                                      GF

                                                      • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                        Glenn Schroeder

                                                        Dan Pihlaja wrote:

                                                         

                                                        I only put it there to show the overall size of the part as an easy reference for ordering material. It is the ONLY time I put dimensions on an isometric view.

                                                         

                                                        There might be a better way using some sort of envelope, but I have never used it. Would like to learn sometime though.

                                                         

                                                        Dan,

                                                         

                                                        If you had created that Plate as a weldment it would have been very easy to have cut list properties linked to those dimensions (see Using Plate in Weldments).  In the screenshot I posted right above yours all the information in the lower right is linked back to the Part.

                                                    • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                      John Stoltzfus

                                                      I would love to use ordinate dimensions - but they don't like them here makes the drawings much neater and easier to read IMO, oh well..

                                                       

                                                      Again drawings are subjective and just looking at your drawing Dan - I see you have (4) four (.000) dimensions - I was always taught you can only have (2) true (.000) the other side is run out, however the overall could be controlled with a tolerance, otherwise impossible..

                                                  • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                    Doug Seibel

                                                    Since you did not also attach the part model that the drawing references, and you did not save the drawing as a "detached drawing"...when attempting to open your drawing all one gets is this...

                                                     

                                                    Looking at the picture of your drawing, there are several things I notice.

                                                     

                                                    1. None of your dimensions make it easy for anyone to know what the overall size of this part is.  Calculating the overall size requires a few trigonometry calculations.  Not good.  Also, I'm not seeing anything regarding the thickness of this part.

                                                     

                                                    2.  "Rotated" dimensions are generally not as useful as vertical/horizontal dimensions.

                                                     

                                                    3.  When I attempt to sketch up your part using just the information provided by the picture of your drawing, it doesn't work.  This is due to the fact that you used a spline to create the "lobe" shape at the bottom of the flag (where the flag will attach to the mailbox).  This area would have been easily created using an arc and a tangent line.

                                                     

                                                    4. Because of how you dimensioned the spline, it give the person looking at the print the impression that it is supposed to be a circular arc instead of a spline curve.

                                                     

                                                    So, not only is it impossible to model up your part using your drawing...it is also impossible for a person to look at the drawing and know what the overall sizes are.  My guess is, those are a couple of the key reasons why your instructor rejected your drawing.

                                                     

                                                    I have attached a "cleaner" version of your part with a drawing that, IMHO, better communicates the part design.

                                                    • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                      Marty Laury

                                                      DIM 3.02 is dangling, cannot tell what it is dimensioning.

                                                      the two vertical lines should have a dimension to show a distance also showing that they are parallel, are they parallel?

                                                      what is your material? and thickness?

                                                      • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                        Eric Eubanks

                                                        flag.JPGHere's an updated version. How does it look? I tried to make my dimension lines not interfere with other dimension lines, but there were some places that I just couldn't see a way to avoid that.

                                                        • Re: What still needs to be dimensioned?
                                                          Eric Blankinship

                                                          Just as a tip.  A way I check to see if I have fully dimensioned a print is to try making the model using nothing but the 2D and mark off dimensions as you use them (Assuming you do Create Dimensions and not Model Dimensions).  If I find that I am missing dimensions or double dimensioned I will find out during this process as I won't have the information needed to create features or I won't use a dimension when making this new model.