Remove scale? 6

[ctopher]

I have been looking into updating our drawing templates.
I was thinking about the Scale block, and scale listed under views.
What do you think about not using scale anymore?
There isn't really any use for it anymore. Drawings are never printed full size, and they are saved as PDF's.
Who cares what the scale is anymore? After printing, the drawings are not to scale.
Thoughts?

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[ctopher]

PDF's can be any size, they are viewed on a computer monitor. They are usually printed on an office printer A or B size.
A plotter is at any size, usually to scale.
We have two high-end plotters here, they are rarely used.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[JNieman]

Printing or plotting is equally fallible. It's to-scale, or not-to-scale, completely based upon user input. We print PDFs to-scale all the time, A, B, D, or custom-size, all the time. From PDFs or from CAD Software. I don't necessarily buy the file-type being a factor of significance.

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

 

[KENAT]

Er, yeah I guess I meant graticule.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[dgallup]

What do you have to gain by not indicating scale? I would never make a drawing without some indication of scale. Even if the drawing is not printed actual size I still think you can get a ballpark mental image of the actual size as long as there is an indicated scale. Sometimes I'm handed a drawing of something I'm completely unfamiliar with and the first thing I want to know is if it's bigger than a breadbox or not.

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

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.

 

[chicopee]

Whenever I do a drawing, I also include a bar graph. Listing scale is important, however, when drawings are copied and reduced on photocopying machines for example, the bar graphs will also be reduced proportionally
and will be of value to the users when approximating dimensions.

 

[KENAT]

chicopee, that's what I meant by graticule on the template of my former employer.

However, so long as you have a stated dimension in both X & Y you should be able to scale from that if need be - bad practice though it generally is.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ctopher]

I can look at the dimensions and know that detail/view is larger or smaller than other views.
I never look at scales, other than typing/inserting them onto the drawing. A printed reduced drawing or PDF file is not viewed to scale.

I did a check. I made a drawing with an odd scale to see who notices. It was .62/1.
Nobody noticed from checker, thru approval, machining, vendor, inspection, assembly.
Most said they never looked at, some said they noticed it was odd ... but moved on without question.
The people that noticed were experienced that were used to using scales on drawings.
The others are newer and not trained in fully understanding how to read drawings (which seems the norm these days).

So, if I add a scale, it seems in most cases nobody really cares.
If I teach somebody about scales and proper usage, it's forgotten the next day and they still don't care.
Only the dimensions on the drawing are what are important.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[KENAT]

Funny, as a checker I did used to notice odd scales.

I always thought twice about making too big of a deal out of it though, as it seemed the preferred scales were no longer explicitly invoked by ASME or something.

Here is an old thread on related topic.

thread1103-199705
thread1103-160902

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ctopher]

Kenat,
Thanks. I found those two threads before this post also.
As previous checker, I also used to check the scale.
I still do if the scale is noted, and will mark them if incorrect. I will not remove them if someone adds them.
I'm thinking of going forward. My drawing since last week I have been noting the drawing scale as "NONE".
The details and views still indicate scale because of the spec.
I think for future use this is no longer needed.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[Tunalover]

ctopher-
I stick with scales that are powers of 2: ...1/16,1/8,1/4,1/2,1,2,4,8,16...
This avoids any scales with repeating decimals like 1/6,1/3.

Does anyone else subscribe to the "power of two" rule for scales?


Tunalover

 

[JNieman]

@tunalover that has been my experience as well. It makes for better/easier dividing.


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

 

[ewh]

This should not be an arbitrary decision by a checker... if you purport to follow ASME standards and are not going to use scale on a drawing (other than the exceptions noted in the standard) you need to document this in your own company standards; otherwise you will claim to be following established standards when you are actually picking and choosing which parts to enforce, but not communicating this to other involved parties.

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[dgallup]

We bought a product line from another company. All the drawings were in AutoMAD. They liked to use unusual scales for detail views like 7:1. Now you can easily scale up from 1:1 to 7:1 because it's an integer multiplication but to make dimensions in the scaled views you have to set "dimlfac" (I dredging up musty memories here so don't kill me if I'm wrong) to the reciprocal of 7 which is a repeating decimal (0.142857142857....) which had only been entered to 3 or 4 decimal places so all the dimensions were approximate and had round off errors. That's not going to happen with a modern CAD system but it's one where I would have torn out my hair if the scale had not been indicated. Most CAD systems automatically insert the scale notes so again I see absolutely no reason not to use them.

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

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.

 

[ctopher]

tunalover,
I also have always used the same scaling.

ewh,
I have to continue to follow ASME Y14.100-2004. The scale will stay in the views/details, but the drawing scale will indicate NONE.

dgallup,
We have the same issue. We bought a couple companies (also with 'AutoMAD'), and they have odd scaling. None of their drawings seem to follow any standard.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[cowski]

Back in the 'board days, once a drawing was finished and approved it got the "ORIGINAL" stamp in red ink. If you were looking at a drawing that had "ORIGINAL" in black, you knew it was some sort of reproduction and the listed scale may or may not be accurate. Today, the "ORIGINAL" resides inside a computer somewhere and every physical drawing is a reproduction to varying degrees of accuracy. When you print/plot a drawing it is to a scale (unless it has intentionally been skewed or the printer/plotter settings are way off); you just don't know if that scale is 1:1, 0.9621:1, 2.0930:1, or something else. Using the scale "NONE" seems a bit wrong to me to mean "I don't know what you have done with this drawing, so I can't guarantee that the scale label is accurate". To me, scale: none means "this is a pictorial diagram and does not reflect the relative size of the final output" - usually used for schematic diagrams (electrical, pneumatic, etc) where the logic of the system is more important than the specific dimensions.

For part drawings, I'd just keep the scale label used in the CAD program; but it sounds like you have already made your decision.

 

[ctopher]

cowski,
<"this is a pictorial diagram and does not reflect the relative size of the final output">
That's what the dimensions are for. If a part is machined based on the scale, there is a problem.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[truckandbus]

Had a QA colleague who would plot tubing drawings full scale to lay the part over top so he wouldn't have to measure. Turns out the feed on the plotter was off (or the plot was so long and heavy the paper stretched) and 36" plotted wouldn't measure 36"

 

[ewh]

If it isn't a flat table plotter then there most likely would be parallax added to the lenght dimension of the drawing. This is one of the reasons that you weren't supposed to scale prints.

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[drawoh]

truckandbus,

If I truly want a 1:1 drawing, I apply a measuring grid. Now, I can scale the grid and verify correct plotting.

It is very easy and convenient in SolidWorks to fit the plot to the drawing, rather than systematically plot 1:1. I am sure all the other CAD packages are like that too.

--
JHG

 

[weavedreamer]

Alas, Achilles cannot catch the tortoise, until it is discovered that the pins in the sand track dividing the distance get so close together that a grain of sand gets in the way of refining the measurement any further.

I'm not sure parallax is the correct term, but I like that you take into account that unrolling paper might impact its length. Of course that's when measured in accordance with ASME B89.6.2:1973 (R2012)?