Drafting Equivalent of Texting
Drafting Equivalent of Texting
(OP)
Anybody notice adherence to drafting standards degenerating over the past few years? It is as if the same attitude seen towards spelling while texting (ur instead of you are, l8tr instead of later, etc) is showing up on the drafting boards (hidden lines missing from views, hole common centerlines implied but not shown, etc.). I've recently changed companies and I'm stunned by the lack of application of standard drawing practices. The common explanation seems to be 'the parts are made from the model anyway, not the drawing)





RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
Where I work we have people working on production parts which are just variants, and all the tolerances and details are known to the machinists, and we have people (like me) working on tools and machinery for production which must get sent out and manufactured. There is a divide between the drawings I make, which must fully communicate a part, and the drawings made for production, which need only really indicate things that are different from the norm. When either side dabbles in the other sides area, there is friction.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
That would have raised my eyebrows too. The way you state it, you sound like you care more about adhering to some standard blindly (Which standard says hidden lines are /required/ again?) rather than trying to keep your eye on the goal which is efficient, clear communication which defines the part fully and without alternate interpretations possible.
_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
I've seen that and it looks like yet another slippery slope to me. In today's world where moving production from Mexico to China is getting as easy as moving to the shop next door "in the house" drawings are easily becoming "outside" drawings and vise-versa.
Maybe you should redirect your energy into making ALL drawing in your company “fully communicate a part”?
Just a thought
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
1. In 2d CAD many times esp. in sheet metal, I've accidently snapped a dimension line to a hidden line and even after checking the drawing it was sent out for fabrication and came back wrong..
2. Too many hidden lines in a view makes a view over complex to understand
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
You know, you may well be right in that comment, and at some point I will find removing the lines to be optimal as well (I'll check the standards first though), but none of the parts involved in what I am referring to were particularly complex or required that decision. Rather, they needed less, and larger (scaled) views so that information was more easily readable, and that was facilitated by using hidden lines to show details that would otherwise be invisible on the lesser number of views.
CheckerHater,
That's a soap box I've been on and chosen to get off for now - I am not the one scheduling or distributing resources on that side, I don't know how much time they have to be making more complete drawings, and ultimately I don't have the experience in doing it myself to have a particularly defensible position one way or the other.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
I am trying to push for using standard ways of doing things myself with little results.
Even though we are occasionally getting burned for sending "internal style" drawings outside, "we always did it this way" attitude prevails.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
People have become lazier at spelling and grammar. Schools don't push it. Drafting is not taught.
I have been doing drafting for a long time and I make a point of following all standards, and chek speling.
Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
I have my drafting degree and worked 3 years as a drafter then in 1991 that mini resession changed everything for me. I went back to college and got my engineering degree, and since then I have yet work at a company that has a drafting department or a drafter. Companies in general paid off entire drafting departments becasue CAD, the internet and running lean has killed off that profession all togther, in fact most comminuty colleges removed an AS in drafting and downgraded it to a certificate.
But convince me why I need a drawing if I need a rapid prototype and don't care about tolerances?
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
As Tick says crummy drawings existed before CAD & Engineers doing their own drafting using it - though it may be that they are more prevalent now.
A couple of thoughts:
1. At least some Engineers see drafting as below them.
2. Many Engineers probably got little or no drafting training at school/uni.
(As to the whole hidden line thing I'm missing something clearly. I make minimal use of hidden lines and am not aware of an ASME std that says to use them as much as possible. ASME Y14.5M-1994 1.4 (g) talks about only dimensioning to visible outlines & Y14.3 talks about not normally showing hidden lines behind cutting plane of section views. 14.3 does show a lot of hidden lines in its figures for what it's worth.)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
* All drawings should be fully dimensioned & specified.
* Proper use of CAD makes for better drawings then manual because all the views update automatically. I have seen 30 year old hand drawn assembly drawing that bore little resemblance to current production because every part had changed but no one wanted to redraw the assembly.
* Training of engineers in drawing practice has never occurred at most universities. Sure there are plenty of technical schools etc. that teach it but not universities. It's something that used to be taught by companies when they hired engineers out of school.
* Kids these days are a bunch of snot nosed punks (enter what ever 40 year period of time you want).
* Get off my grass.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
In that case I'd suggest perhaps they are missing views rather than necessarily lacking hidden lines.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
They are exactly what you would see for any given view or section. Whilst a strength this is also a weakness as you either have an all or nothing approach with things like hidden lines, at least on any package I am aware of.
What the old school drawings were very good at, at least the best ones, was showing enough to trick the person viewing them that all the information was there, whilst actually providing all the information that was needed.
If you actually look at many old drawings they are not true representations of the actual part at all, if you model a part from a hand drawing and then generate 2D views you will often see how bad they really were, but still look better to the eye and provide enough information to manufacture too as they looked far less cluttered.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
That can be a matter of opinion. For example I prefer a lot more information on single views, it helps me orient the part in my mind a lot easier, and it also can avoid having to dart back between multiple views and sort of daisy chain dimensions together to find where things are placed. Less views on the same paper can also mean larger scaled views, which is nice.
Ajack,
I'm not sure I follow your second set of comments- "showing enough to trick the person viewing them that all the information was there, whilst actually providing all the information that was needed." Why would you need to trick the person that all the info was there, if all the info needed was indeed provided? No trickery there. Not sure I understand your last section either. Are you saying drawings were not to scale and this was used to make them more clear? All the "oldschool" drawings I have seen (admittedly not many) that were decent/intended for longevity have been mostly scale.
Also while no hidden lines may be acceptable as I would know not to rely on them,if there was a mix of hidden lines shown and not shown I would probably start making mistakes in interpreting, or at least get slowed down really far and just needing to confirm with whoever drew it that there were not just mistakes in projection etc. Do you guys actually use inconsistent hidden line presence in drawings?
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
One is an exact representation of what you see and one is not but tricks the mind and the one that is wrong actually looks better to the eye.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting
I am as "old school" as it gets, but even in the times of paper and pencil I was thought: if you want to show "what's inside" you make a section.
Hidden lines serve auxiliary function, may be incomplete or removed "for clarity".
Refusing to provide sectional view in the times of CAD is simply beyond laziness.
RE: Drafting Equivalent of Texting