2 Replies Latest reply on Mar 28, 2014 8:31 AM by rusty drake

    Drawing view "properties" may hold the key?

    rusty drake

      I was doing some checking of a drawing that was done overseas by an "outside" (way outside) firm and was perplexed as to how a particular view was inserted.  It was a "flat pattern" of a sheetmetal part but the orientation of the view did not agree with the bending process.  We (our company) show our views as "Bend Up" when possible so the brake press operator gets the same view of the part, during the forming process, as depicted on the drawing.

       

      This view had me stumped as to how it was established on the sheet, until a fellow worker was invited to solve the challenge.  BINGO!  The flat pattern view was of the "opposite side" of the part from what we would think it should be (part has a horizontal line of symetry), but then "rotated" 180 degrees to achieve the proper flat pattern appearance.  This was discovered by "unforming" the side view (where just the plate thickness is shown) and noticing the bent legs were in the wrong direction (flat pattern was actually in a "Bend Down" orientation.

       

      Now, let's get to the point here.  I would like to propose an enhancement of the "View Properties" that has an added block stating any possible "rotation" of the view.  Typically the model is orientated as desired and placed in the drawing views as needed.  In this case, the "View Rotate" tool was used to achieve the view presentation which is out of the ordinary.

       

      Enhancement possiblility?

        • Re: Drawing view "properties" may hold the key?
          Jeff Holliday

          Just curious - when you said the drawing was done by a "way outside" firm - is it possible they were using first-angle versus third-angle projection for the views?

            • Re: Drawing view "properties" may hold the key?
              rusty drake

              Good thought Jeff.  They are aware that we do "Third Angle Projection", and the views are positioned as such.

               

              I just think that they struggled to get the "flat pattern" view to the proper orientation and the conclusion they came with is very "untypical".

               

              Or, due to the part having the "horizontal line of symetry", the front & back views are the same, with the exception of them being "mirrored" in the standard multi-view drawing.  Maybe they brought in the "back" view and rotated it 180 deg to have it appear as the "front" view.  Still have not seen the result of their correction to the drawing yet.

               

              But, if the view properties would include the "view rotation" status, maybe I could have put this matter together a little quicker.