Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
(OP)
I have a mounting plate that several components will be mounted. I have always liked to dimension hole to hole on my separate components, and have the same dimensioning on mounting plate for tolerance. If you do ordinate you really can't do that this.
Different Engineering manager's express their own preference for dimensioning, Ordinate vs regular dimensioning. Most say to avoid ordinate dimenions because of tolerance issues.
Anyone know is there really a difference between using Ordinate or regular???
Confused designer....
Different Engineering manager's express their own preference for dimensioning, Ordinate vs regular dimensioning. Most say to avoid ordinate dimenions because of tolerance issues.
Anyone know is there really a difference between using Ordinate or regular???
Confused designer....






RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
Sometimes ordinate can be hard to inspect.
The tolerances would be different between ordinate and 'regular' dimensions.
If hole to hole works with how the mating part is dim, you can tolerance them the same. If the plate had ordinate and the mating part had hole to hole, the tolerances could be off.
Hard to say without seeing the assy.
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
There is no need to just pick one method! Think of them as tools in your toolbox. Use what ever method or a combination that best describes the function of the part to ensure proper operation of the final assembly. We are heavy users of GD&T as it removes a significant amount of grey area.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
-Kirby
Kirby Wilkerson
Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
So I would normally dimension the position of one hole (the 'seed' hole) and then the hole pattern relative to it.
You can then dimension the mating part holes in a similar way.
It all depends on what is required for assembly.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
We have many parts where the hole pattern is very important, but its location with respect to the edges is less critical so the tolerance to the edge is big. If the ordinate dimensioning and the manufacturing method that uses it can give you the requirements within your tolerances between features than that is not a bad way to go. However, you really cannot convert the tolerance from a feature-to-feature scheme to ordinate dimensioning so this is the dilemma you have to deal with.
GD&T is the most eloquent and unambiguous language for conveying the part's requirements. However, all parties involved must "speak it" well or it is just another foreign language. Someone once told me that GD&T is like French. French may be "the language of love", but if you are speaking French to someone that does not understand it, you are not going to get what you want. :(
- - -Updraft
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning Vs Regular Dimensioning
Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
&