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]

I know this seems knit-picking, and most people don't care....but,

English units should be: 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.
Metric drawings should be: 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, etc.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[KENAT]

Ctopher, you're picking the wrong nits, at least to ASME Y14.100-2004 (which you quoted above) either 1:2 or 1/2 is acceptable.

Given that Y14.38 generally removed use of "/" from abbreviations I lean toward using ":" but either is acceptable to at least the version of Y14.100 stated.

It doesn't state anything about differentiating metric from customary that I see.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ewh]

ASME Y100-2013 shows acceptable examples of "SCALE X/X", "SCALE X:X", or "SCALE X.X" (4.24.2).
What I am having difficulty locating though is where in the standards the actual scales mentioned are specified. I know I've seen them somewhere (though I remember 1/10 instead of 1/8). Genium, perhaps? The Global Drawing Requirements Manual does not list 1/8, but does list 1/10 (as non-preferred).

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

 

[KENAT]

ewh - there was an old thread where I asked about this exact point, maybe one of the threads I linked a few days ago.

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​

 

[ewh]

Thanks KENAT; a lot has happened since then... except for the answer to this question.
It seems that actual scales are not specified in ASME.

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

 

[drawoh]

ctopher,

I try to confine myself to scales that are on my drafting scales. My English scale is 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and 1:6. I have a metric scale that goes 1:100, 1:200, 1:250, 1:L300, 1:400 and 1:500. I have another metric scale that goes 1:100, 1:125, 1:75, 1:20, 1:25 and 1:50. I do not always succeed in confining myself to this. 1:8 scale is useful sometimes.

--
JHG

 

[ctopher]

I know, it's just me knit-picking. ;-)

I have seen this on a spec somewhere once, but can't find where.
This is the only site so far I found...
Link

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[KENAT]

Chris, that link looks biased to construction work.

I'm certainly not claiming the differentiation may not be common practice and may have been in some old standard. However, as far as I can tell it's not in the version of y14.100 that I have.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ctopher]

KENAT,
I agree it's not Y14.100, but it was what I could find for now.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[CheckerHater]

For whatever it's worth...

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

 

[weavedreamer]

My, but are there a lot of exceptional cases out there.

 

[CheckerHater]

Welcome to the club

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

 

[ctopher]

CheckerHater,
Thanks for the link. We don't use that standard, but I will make note of it for future use.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[tbuelna]

I remember a while back where I worked on a NASA program that required all engineering drawings submitted to NASA had to be on an ASME D-size format (22" x 34"). I was told the reason for this was because the standard office cubicles used by NASA only had enough desk space for a 22" x 34" print. So the engineering drawings on that program had lots of sheets and there were many views that extended over several consecutive sheets.

 

[Sparweb]

Tbuelna,
...Boeing developed a CAD software tool that would take a scanned image of a sheet metal master template...
The company I work for now would benefit from that. Currently they receive mylar drawings from "another" OEM, scan them, and then trace the lines in AutoCAD to generate the part profile! I have tried to suggest alternatives, but I'm only an engineer, what do I know?

Up until a few years ago, I worked in an office that had a 36" wide colour plotter. I had a lot of fun with it. That included printing everything full scale. And calibrating the feed drive to get the length-wise error down to 0.05" every 12 feet.
We also had a working blueprinter. The boss was old-fasioned, so it was point of policy to send blueprints to customers when the drawings were done.

I stopped religiously scaling my drawing views when I started using Inventor. In AutoCAD I'm still picky about it; some habits die hard. I now work in an office with 3 different generations of engineers. Consequently, there are very different ideas about how a drawing should be layed out and scaled. A recent paroxysm of template and title block renewal resulted in no less than 5 "standard" dimension styles, 6 text styles, and borders drawn 22x32 in drawing units, when everyone knows that the final prints will always be on 11x17 paper. In both AutoCAD and Inventor, it was a disaster. Fortunately, it has been fixed. From now on, our ACAD and INV title blocks all say "SCALE NONE".


STF

 

[tbuelna]

SparWeb-

The program at BCAG was the 757-300. All the legacy structures drawings were done on paper/mylar, and Boeing wanted the -300 design done with CATIA V4. The sheet metal CAD tool worked amazingly well. But it still required a bit of manual tune-up to get the models to the level of accuracy that Boeing engineering required for their digital models. I also had to place each piece of geometry ( trim lines, bend lines, mold lines, tooling holes, pilot holes, etc.) on specific layers with specific identifications/names. There was an automated checking function that each model and drawing had to pass before being released. With some models/drawings that had lots of features it took quite a few tries to get the CAD files to pass the checking application.

This was almost 20 years ago, and I'm sure there are now way better CAD applications for doing this kind of work.