BASIC DIMENSIONS

[snare1]

HAS ANYONE FOUND THAT WHEN YOU NEED TO INCLUDE USER TEXT WITH A BASIC DIMENSION (BOX AROUND THE DIMENSION) THAT YOU CAN NOT HAVE THE USER TEXT INSIDE THE BOX ?

THANKS IN ADVANCE
Snare1

 

[MadMango]

From talking with folks that deal with GD&T for a living, only the dimension should be in the box. SW has it right for standard dimension practices. "The attempt and not the deed confounds us."

 

[snare1]

Thanks for the reply
How do your folks explain the examples used throughout the ANSI Y14.5-1984 hand book ? I have lost more than a few battles with checkers over this. In fact I have faxed pages from the hand book to the local SW tech for forwarding to SW. The tech, in fact has logged the request.

 

[snare1]

Correction to the previous response. It's ANSI Y14.5-1982.
Also check out pages 34,60,61 ect. See what I mean ?

 

[meintsi]

Snare is right...to an extent.

You should be able to add a callout like 6X within a basic dimension box. Solidworks does not allow this.

But usually this type of callout in used for angular dimensions only, never for linear dimensions.

When snare used the term "user text", the first thing people think of is some sort of note which is not allowed.

Remember...
"If you don't use your head,
your going to have to use your feet."

 

[RawheadRex]

While SolidWorks claims to support the ASME Y14.5 dimensioning standard this claim isn't entirely true. Basic dimensions when called out singularly by themselves work just fine but aside from the example of trying to dimension 6X 60° to the letter of the standard there is at least one other instance I can think of where the standard isn't supported by SolidWorks drafting.

Has anyone tried dimensioning a linear pattern of holes (e.g. 3X 1.000 = 3.000) and found the method of complying with the letter of the standard quite wanting? There ought to be some automated method of specifying that a linear pattern is basic so that when importing dimension from a model into a drawing the patterns are dimensioned in such a way that avoids the multiple work-arounds required to dimension the patter to standard.

Here's what we/I have to do in order to properly dimension a linear pattern to standard:

- Create a reference dimension of the overall length of the pattern (ensuring that parantheses are displayed)

- Create a "boxed" annotation that references that linear pattern step dimension (this is the basic portion of pattern dimension)

- Figure out the number of space characters needed in order to manually place the "boxed" annotation in-line with the reference dimension and add them to the reference dimension text

- Manually place the "boxed" annotation so that it appears in-line with the reference dimension

- Tweak the location(s) as necessary

For anyone who hasn't done this or something similar previously I assure you that it's tedious (and unnecessary in my opinion).

I have other qualms with SolidWorks drafting capability which I'm sorry to say aren't up to par with ProE but I won't go into them. Suffice to say though I believe it to be misleading for them to claim the ASME Y14.5 standard is supported when in fact that is only a partially truth. Sorry to ramble but I'm still a detail drafter at heart and can still hear my instructors and mentors drilling proper dimensioning practices into my brain whenever I deal with these shortcomings in the software.

Chris Gervais
Mechanical Designer
American Superconductor

 

[snare1]

Chris--
You hit the nail on the head !! I must have had the same instructor !! The truth of the matter is, there are always work arounds, but why should you or I or anyone of us have to work around something as simple as this. When I first started working on CAD that was a way of life. That was 20 years ago and even CV had a way to include text inside a basic box!!. It was a real pain but it worked.
Anyway I have called SWX and they have assured me that they are looking into my/our little gripe and will be including it in the next(?)upgrade. That was three months ago.
Thanks to all
P.S. Do any of you want to tackle the other post I made about tolerances on holes and spotfaces in combination

 

[RawheadRex]

"P.S. Do any of you want to tackle the other post I made about tolerances on holes and spotfaces in combination..."

Don't get me started on that one!!

Give us a the beginning of a fairly decent tool (in theory/concept at least) in Hole Callout but they don't bother to finish it off and give it every bit of functionality that one might need (i.e. combination tolerances, etc.). Yet another one of my pet peeves with SolidWorks drafting module.

I've had people talk to me for years about drawings going the way of the dinosaur. Nice sentiment (maybe), but I haven't heard of or worked for any company/organization utilizing CAD where the final output/purpose/product from the software is NOT drawings. Don't get me wrong SolidWorks has come quite far in the time since I first started using it (97Plus) but enhancement/improvements to the Drafting module have been a consistent disappointment to me. For everything they've done in terms of improvements it seems as though more could be done to enhancement core capability in the Drafting module (at least as far as dimensioning is concerned).

Sorry for more ranting.

Chris Gervais
Mechanical Designer
American Superconductor

 

[DigiBob]

I aggree with that totally, add disapointing Bom feature also.. Thank God our company went to separate parts lists generated by Cost Point program.. That's one headache I no longer have to worry about.

Bob