Creating a section view to dimension takes unnecessary amount of time. Is there any standard for this? What is your opinion on this? Thank you
Solidworks includes that in the hole callout feature if the c'sink is created using the hole wizard. I don't see why any actual profiles views are necessary unless it is way beyond standard.
Edit: Aw, I see it is not standard by the fact that the c'sink is not on either face but sunken. I think your method is good to assure it is clear.
Use a broken out section.
If you have used the "Hole Wizard" to create the geometry you can use the "Hole Callout" feature within Annotations and it will auto populate.
That doesn't seem like a very clear way to call that hole feature out for someone making it.
Edit: upon looking at it further, I see now, drill through hole, counterbore to 15/16" deep, then finally countersink as final operation(using my drill press and multiple tool thinking haha). Clearly I'm not a machinist:).
A Mid-Side callout should be used.
I don't think you can go wrong by taking the time to dimension the cross-section, but you have at least one superfluous dimension. The 1/8" dimension in the lower left corner isn't needed. The 1-3/8" dimension is probably not necessary either, since it's driven by the other dimensions.
I do similar to John Pesaturo.
I would never dimension to hidden lines.
In this case, I would cut a side section and then dimension to that. We have plenty of holes that could be confusing is only seen from the top.
Old school rules: You're NOT ALLOWED to dimension to hidden lines! John Pesaturo's callout with the added sectional view is all that's required. Even Ray Charles could figure out the intent of what the engineer / draftsman is looking for. KISS [Keep It Simple Stupid!]
Keith Stegemann wrote: Old school rules: You're NOT ALLOWED to dimension to hidden lines! John Pesaturo's callout with the added sectional view is all that's required. Even Ray Charles could figure out the intent of what the engineer / draftsman is looking for. KISS [Keep It Simple Stupid!]
Keith Stegemann wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that whoever made that rule never had to dimension rebar locations in concrete. I dimension to hidden lines all the time and no one complains.
I guess that I should have said, 'VERY old school rules". The drafting books that I still have go back to 1962, 67 & 68. Yes, that was back in the day [before the .05, .07 .09 mechanical pencils] that you actually had a pencil in your hand. And, yes, you had to know how to put a 'conical' point on that pencil and actually rotate it as you drew a line to ensure that you would obtain and even width to your line work. We're not even going to go into the 'arrow head' specifics! The logic behind not dimensioning to hidden lines was, "If you can't see it...you can't dimension it." Yes, we all know the intent, and the year is 2018, so dimension away all you like to hidden lines. But if you had done that 50 years ago, the proctor would have ripped you another A.H.!
I can understand "If you can't see it...you can't dimension it", but you can certainly measure to concrete forms before the concrete is poured.
I would ask it now! hahaI am facing this problem in the company now. We're using automatic hole callout, but we find that a bit confusing. The engineers here didn't like it and asked to do a section view of the hole. The problem is that some parts have two or three types of holes, and creating them is taking a lot of extra time.I am planning to see other SW standards for this kind of annotation. Unfortunately we do not have drivers in the company to assist us in this process.Is there any way to modify the standard hole call fields? (People don't like the 90° angle, they prefer to put a 45° angle.)
Retrieving data ...