My dilemma is I want to show both the dimension of the parts that have already been made (in order to maintain some consistency with new parts that will be made from my files) and the minimum requirement as given in the spec sheet, expressed as a MIN, for inspection purposes.
I guess I could...
Thank you all for your responses. Here's how I chose to document a cylindrical coupling with a socket.
The minimum socket depth requirement according to the standard spec guide is 3/8", and the parts that were previously made have a slightly larger depth of 7/16". In order to maintain some...
Thank you all for the replies. To answer some of the questions, the 3D model (exported in STEP format) will be handed to an outside machine shop along with a drawing driven by the original 3D file. Is it acceptable practice to override the dimensions in the drawing (albeit stated as a minimum)...
How do I model 3D part features that are only specified by minimum dimensions? The drawings I'll be making from these 3D parts will only call out minimum dimensions on certain features because that's what the ASME standards specify.
For example, I have a coupling which must maintain a minimum...
I found a macro that comes close to what I need, it imports the entire design table into a drawing.
https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/187896
It would be nice if the generated table could update itself with any changes made in the part/assembly configurations.
I'm trying to create a configuration table in an assembly drawing, basically a design table, but I want it to look like the rest of the title block (not a spreadsheet that's been pasted in the sheet). Similar to what the BOM or Rev tables look like.
I found a macro that creates a table listing...
I found a great resource online.
http://www.qualitytool.com/resources/Design-Handbook-Rev3.pdf
And the answer to my original question can be found on the second page.
"Critical Dimensions Sheet Metal Forming – Outside dimension should be used unless the inside dimension is critical."
I was given several sheet metal parts, they are basically U-shaped with three flat sides. I know the standard is to dimension the outside of the part along with the inside radii. However on the sketches I was given, the inside width of the U is specified, possibly because the inside surfaces...
Thanks for the replies.
What I was trying to achieve was a way to quickly set up true isometric projections (45° along vertical axis and 35.264° along horizontal axis).
I found the solution right under my nose. In the part or assembly, after hitting the space bar turn on the "View Selector"...
I often find myself creating isometric views other than the standard one, usually to show part details in different orientations. To do this I have to constantly go back to Tools > Options, click View and change the Arrow keys setting by typing either 45° or 35.264°.
This is starting to get old...
Here's the best photo I was able to take. I noticed that the "hook" part on top has a parting line all around it. I'll try to take more photos after I figure out how to focus correctly.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=19da98f4-4154-4e91-8d81-19927f0817cd&file=IMG_2860.JPG
Yes, I agree that with your suggestion, it would greatly simplify the tool and reduce cost. But I was trying to reverse-engineer a part that my current company already makes. The tooling already exists (some vendor in China has it), but our engineering file is missing the appropriate details...
Here's a picture to help explain my original question. I'd like to know if I need a draft on the bottom-facing surface of the spring clip using a side-action cam.
The tool will release top-to-bottom and the parting line is at the base of the part.
I am reverse engineering a plastic part that has a run-of-the-mill spring clip created by a side-action cam. There doesn't seem to be draft on any of the cam surfaces (bottom face of the "hook" and the parallel face right below it). Is this common practice or would it be preferable to have a...
