Correct, it's not my drawing. As for the flats of the hex, the view that I sent is somewhat misleading. Think of a set screw with a hex socket. Here is an isometric view.
No angular orientation dimensions on this drawing. It seems ok though as is. Parallel sides are defined by implied...
Never mind. I agree about irregular feature of size. However, irregular feature of size can still be a datum feature. The .753+000/-.002 dimension is applied to the distances between all matching parallel surfaces of the hexagon based on the HEX note, which creates a set of three center...
I'm not altogether clear on how it works. With 6 sides we define three center planes, which for the real parts will not intersect at the same axis. So we would have 3 separate axes. Which one do you use as the datum axis? In addition, what happens if the hole has odd number of sides, can you...
I know you can use a square hole as a datum feature - put a single dimensions with a square symbol and attach a datum symbol to it. Can you do the same for other geometries as well? With the square you define two planes of symmetry which form an axis at their intersection. With other...
I didn't have an issue with the fact that the bottom view was reversed. The question was more about the layout of the views. I understand that you can unfold the "projection planes box" to look like that (again aside from the fact whether it is a good practice or not) and the bottom view will...
Sorry for the confusion, this example doesn't directly relate to the original question of the view missing. It is about the bottom view being placed below the rear view. Now top view and bottom view are in reverse orientation from each other.
Something else I thought of. Does it mean that the example below is an allowable practice? Again, ignore the names of the views. They are there to clarify how I see the views being formed.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is called a discussion, you should try it sometime. To paraphrase your answer, the rear view is not projected based on your opinion. If you read my original question when I started this thread, I was attempting to figure out what the standard says about it...
What can I say, just when I think that I know something its time to revisit the basics again. That's why I come here, so you guys can tell me how its done.[pipe]
I think the standard is fine as it is. You have to play within the rules set by the standard. So if the standard leaves the room for interpretation, that room should be allowed on the drawing and we can discuss it. However the fundamentals should be clear to everybody involved with no room...
That's always a sign of weakness in any position when you ask a direct question and get a response about the number of years you've been doing it the same way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of experience, but is there a chance we can all learn something new...
Again based on what? Can you back up this statement? I provided you a direct quote from the ASME standard that all the drawings are based on, not from some "analytical geometry textbook".
You missed something above in one of my posts. You are wrong in thinking that one projected view is formed from another projected view. Each view is formed from the object/model and Y14.3 standard is quite clear about it: " 5.1 Orthographic Projection: "Orthographic projection is a system of...
Again, what is this statement based on? If it is not projected, then how is it formed? If it is not one of the principal orthographic views, then it is none of the other views described in the standard. Completely agree with you though on the fact that it obfuscates the drawing.
And that's based on what? That's taking it a step further than the standard intended. Y14.3 says: "6 PRINCIPAL ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEWS: The terms "top,"front," "bottom," "right side," "left side," and "rear" shall themselves not be used for naming views." It doesn't say the views can't be named or...
