Indication of drawing scale in Solid Edge, SolidWorks, Inventor, etc... 1

[sanfobr]

Hello,

This is my first post ever, please be kind. I've been fighting a battle with my older colleges about the need to indicate scale on drawings. We design everything in 1:1 in 3D and place everything at a given scale to fit on metric A1 title block. We do not print anything full size, instead we print to 11x17 which is reduced at some odd factor. We also have noted on all our drawings "DO NOT SCALE DRAWING". I've also read several post about the issues of printing at scale accurately.

So I'm trying to make the argument that indication of scale on drawings is irrelevant and not required. I'm not arguing that scale factors be used correctly, just not indicated.

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Thank you.

Sanfobr

 

[ctopher]

I had the same argument recently. We no longer use scale. It does not mean anything to anyone anymore.
Those that were against removing it, I made a drawing to some weird scale (2.43/1) to check it. Nobody noticed.
I proved my point, it's off the drawings now.
The only thing that matters are the dimensions are correct on the drawing and the 3D models are 1/1 (nominal).
Fewer people are using plotters, and printers are never exactly to scale.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks '15
SolidWorks Legion

 

[sanfobr]

Thank you Chris!

If we were still doing board drawings or plotting I would completely see the need, but that is no longer the case.

Sanfobr

 

[CheckerHater]

As soon as you loosen your requirements, some idiot will manage to make EVERY SINGLE VIEW in different scale, and you will be the first to cry foul.

Other then that it is simply a matter of contractual obligation. Applying scale to your drawings is mentioned in ASME Y14.100

If you don't have to play the game, you also don't have to follow rules.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[swertel]

We put it on the drawing simply for the sake of a quick reference when editing the drawing.

Like the above, no one plots full scale and no one puts a ruler to the page anymore. But, with the scale shown in the title block, when a revision is being made, the draftsman knows what the "default" drawing view scale should be to maintain consistency across all sheets of the drawing.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[JNieman]

The only thing it is useful for is a quick reference from one view to another view of a different scale.

You could call the first view "Scale: Q" and cut a section that is labelled "Section A-A / Scale: 2Q" and it'd be just the same, to me. It shows that the detail is blown up by 2x. The print stating "Scale 1:2 unless otherwise noted", for example, gives you a starting point. The main view is 1:2. If you see "Detail A / Scale 2:1" then you have an immediate sense of size compared to the parent view.

I don't think anyone wants to measure the scale except for very exceptional circumstances. I think that, basically, if you have to ask - scale isn't used except for reference. If you or your shop or fabricator is using scale for anything other than to wrap their head around drawing views quickly, then you'll already know.


_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

 

[dgallup]

I do not understand why anyone would want to remove scale from a drawing. It fills in our title blocks automatically. What possible benefit is there to not showing it?

----------------------------------------

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.

 

[KENAT]

How much effort does it take to indicate the scale?

How much effort is saved not doing so?

How many errors are avoided by not having scale?

How many errors are caused by not having scale indicated?

I say leave it on and quit being lazy but I may be missing your point.

Having had to deal with drawings with random scaling going on I prefer to keep it clearly stated - even if it gets looked at on the screen or printed off on some reduced size.

Some people do still print 1:1 at times, and I've been forced to put a ruler to incomplete drawings of components I'm interfacing with despite it being bad practice.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[sanfobr]

CheckerHater,
I guess I'm that idiot then.
On a multi-sheet drawing for example; I may have an iso view with a parts list on sheet 1, orthographic views on sheet 2, plan view only for plant layout on sheet 3, and detail views on sheet 4. According to you they all need to be the same scale? I would argue that the the scales should be the best to show the view. So the iso view on sht 1 and plan view on sht 3 may be the same scale but the orthographic views on sht 2 would be smaller so they fit the sheet. Here's another issue; our title block has a dedicated box to indicate the scale of the drawing. The problem is that that indicated scale only applies to the first view placed on that drawing. On a multi-sheet drawing the title block is the same throughout and therefore the scale will most likely not match the views on subsequent sheets. Indicating scale on individual views could be done as normal but falls under the same issue of printing to reduced size, and "DO NOT SCALE DRAWING".

I love that you immediately jump to quoting some standard that justifies your view instead of thinking outside the box as engineers and designers are encouraged to do. Perhaps the standard should be rewritten.

Question everything!

Swertel,
Simply selecting any view will tell you the scale used for that view. Indication of scale is still irrelevant.

Sanfobr
Solid Edge ST7

 

[JNieman]

People with a piece of paper in their hand cannot "select a view"

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

 

[sanfobr]

Dimensions on paper paint a pretty accurate picture. If something's missing then the company, individual should be contacted to verify before assumptions/mistakes are made.

Sanfobr
Solid Edge ST7

 

[KENAT]

There's a time & place to be creative - and there's a time and place to do it the same way as everybody else so everyone else can understand what you're doing.

If you spend your time questioning everything you'll get nothing done.

Standards be rewritten - oh to be so young and optimistic;-).

The general sheet scale should normally be 'unless otherwise stated'. It generally is the scale that most views on that sheet are drawn at, exceptions are then directly labeled. We set it separately for first sheet and continuation sheet in the background (i.e. effectively modify the 'drawing template'). If there is more than one continuation sheet though then we have the same situation as you.

Having different views at different scales is entirely correct, so long as it's clear what the scale of each view in relation to others is.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[swertel]

sanfobr,

A quick glance at the title block tells me the majority of the views' scale. It's much quicker than having to select a view and interrogate it properties, especially when I'm looking at the pdf version of the drawing.

Not to sound judgemental, but it appears that you are depending too much on the CAD tool instead of doing your own thinking. And by judgemental, I mean I'm not referring to "you" in the specific sense because I've never met you and have no idea what it is you're doing or what your background is. But, implied from your responses is one of the downfalls of technology, putting too much dependence on the tool instead of on the engineer (and the engineer's brain). I'll save the rest of my soapbox rant for another time.

One of the biggest debates I have when implementing systems is that too many people want the system to do everything. "AUTOMATE ALL THE THINGS!" I remind them that automation is just a way to make more garbage faster. And, in the end, it doesn't matter how automated the system is because sooner or later a human will be in the loop and the data needs to be human readable. The more human readable, the less likely the chance for human error.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[ctopher]

I fight the battle constantly of new engineers/designers/drafters that do not have the proper training or experience of proper drawing practices.
The scales are usually displayed wrong or a non-standard scale is used.
Displaying the scale in a view does nothing more than telling the reader that the view is a bigger. It is obviously bigger.
Most of us have been trained in drafting and are used to adding scale. But, in those days we were plotting large formats and scaling off of the drawing.
For most companies these days, few people do this anymore. A lot of people that handle drawings do not understand, or care, about anything other than the dimensions.
Leaving the scale off of the drawing is not laziness, it simply removes clutter that most people don't look at anyway.
I did a test early this year and sent out drawings, without any scale indicated, to a few machine shops/vendors.
Not one noticed the scales were removed. Inspection and QA both in-house and out did not notice.
In the past, if an engineer indicated scale, sometimes vendors and inspection would waste time checking it and questioning validity.
As long as the dimensions/tolerances were clear, it's good.
I know it's on the standard(s) to have the scale, but it causes less headaches for us to not show it.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks '15
SolidWorks Legion

 

[swertel]

ctopher,

I've experienced the same thing. And if your company standards allow you to omit the scale, then I agree with not including it. But, here's an example of when I've found it handy.

1) For our tooling department, we create multi-detail drawings. The tooling assemblies are much larger and have a smaller scale (1:4 to 1:12). The component parts are sometimes very intricate, and require a larger scale (4:1). Without a quick visual indicator as to the relative scale of parts, the brain has to spend extra compute cycles "resizing" the components to make sense of how the components fit into the assembly. Now, I have seen this problem solved by using relative scales; detail views are 2X or 4X for example, instead of a scalable scale (4:1 or 2:1). This relative scale is based on the dominate view, normally the assembly view. The problem with that technique is by the time I get to page 12, I don't want to add an 8X to every view I place because I scaled down the assembly view on sheet 1.

2) During PDR and CDR (preliminary- and critical- design reviews) we have a dozen or so people pouring over the drawings, each looking for their own details based on their specialty. We can't do that electronically with a single projector. Over half the room would be sitting around doing nothing. In this case, having the view scale on each drawing again helps with the human readable aspect of going over each detail because a reviewer will overlay the drawings onto each other to see the interfaces. If the drawing scale isn't listed, we have to perform a quick failure investigation: is the drawing printed to a different scale or is it actually designed wrong?

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[ctopher]

swertel,
We have the same process as you.
We recently had a part sent to a well known machine shop here in the US, who then sent it to China to be machined.
The part came to us 1-1/2 times bigger. They read the scale on the drawing!
The company we ordered it from didn't inspect it per the dimensions. This has been a growing problem is that past couple years.
So, in my opinion, these days it does more harm than good to use it.
I spent the past 30+ years doing drawings and making sure the scale is correct, but there comes a time for some things to end.
If more people within the engineering/machining arena are properly trained in proper drafting/drawing skills, there wouldn't be an issue.

We recently had a PDR with Bo*ing, the engineer agreed with me that the scale was not needed. But, per their standard, it had to stay.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks '15
SolidWorks Legion

 

[swertel]

Seriously, ctopher. Your Chinese supplier read the dimensions, then read the scale on the drawing, and assumed it was a scale factor? That's a new one!

And having the entire quality control breakdown didn't help catch it. One more reason to bring manufacturing closer to the point of use. Cost of quality, eh?

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[JNieman]

Re: the Chinese manufacturer: It just goes to show - you can do what you can to make it idiot proof, but they'll still make a bigger idiot.

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

 

[CheckerHater]

Dear sanfobr,

Nobody here was attacking your personal style. Perhaps I should add "on the same drawing sheet" to be more clear

" indicated scale only applies to the first view placed on that drawing"? Try to work on real CAD system. I've tried 7 or 8 - haven't seen stuff you mention

The name of this forum actually starts with "Drafting standards" maybe you picked the wrong one?

Thinking outside of the box earned me two patents. What's your personal score?

Question authority! (Ask me)



"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[ctopher]

Haha!
It's unfortunate. We try to use local mfg and US companies. We don't seem to have control with what they do to get the job done.
The part made to the scale was a new one for us too, but it happened.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks '15
SolidWorks Legion