Skip to main content
L
Lohbauer1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 14, 2014
Question

For Discussion: Should SCALE be in a drawings titleblock?

  • March 14, 2014
  • 31 replies
  • 14557 views

Happy Friday,


This is more of an academic discussion starter thana problem. We are looking at updating our engineering formats and the question of whether to eliminate the SCALE field came up. Given the approaching model-onlystate of ASME Y14.41-2003, is the information necessary to have in a drawing?


Have at it.


Thanks,
WindchillAdministrator



This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

31 replies

Show previous replies
M
mpeterson1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 16, 2014
Lance,



I am all in favor of embracing model base environment, but there are plenty of other people in the process who don’t have access to this data directly and will not for a long time. There are still companies that are drawing on the board and others that are using the 2D colored electronic pencil. Many companies also export their 3D and create detail drawings in 2D. This is primarily driven by cost whether it be computers, software, training, license maintenance costs, PLM systems, servers, etc. and the list of costs go on and on. I have been with numerous companies that still do not implement PDM systems because, “well you have been doing without it up till now without it”. What about people in purchasing and all the vendors they work with? If you are buying extruded tubing are you going to insist the vendor have the software and systems to be compatible in your 3D world? Or are you going to attempt to buy per a word definition when a picture (or detail drawing) is worth a thousand words?



I also disagree with your understanding of SHALL. This isn’t a suggestion and is meant as it WILL be done. I don’t think engineers use a different dictionary.



In regard to engineers not having drafting education that is not a good situation either. Even if we go to MBE than there better be some substitute or education on how to define parts critically in regard to tolerances and GD&T. Fortunately people and organizations are working on creating and maintaining standards that apply to 3M model based systems. At a minimum engineers need to understand how to read a detail drawing since it will be a very long time before every part ever made is modeled in 3D.



Don’t get me wrong. I would love to see engineering, companies and industries embrace 3D modeling and 3D documentation, but it will be a while before the costs will allow that and until then we all still need to keep the train on the tracks and use the tools we have to communicate effectively.



Sincerely,

Mark A. Peterson

Design Engineer

Varel International

-


J
JOES1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 16, 2014

This has been a great discussion & I can’t resist joining in. OK... so those that have complete 3D capability from art to part might not need to scale documents. The rest of us still need drawings & why would we not require scale on them?



As to Engineers not getting drafting training… did they ever? Kidding! I know at one time it was part of the training. My first employer was an old school engineer & was also a talented draftsman. He told me he that he practiced is lettering 15 mins every single day when he was in school. Since then, as a mechanical designer for 20 years, I’ve yet to meet an engineer that has had much in the way of drafting training. The only exception being designers that went on to get an engineering degree.



Now days HR departments insist that these positions be filled by “mechanical engineers”, as in BSMEs. This makes backfilling positions difficult when we don’t get a single candidate that has any training or experience in actual design or drafting. Once we got lucky to get a person with two associate degrees (mechanical design & tooling design) that our HR moron claimed had the equivalent of a bachelors. Then somehow I have to convince these engineers to follow drafting standards & use our data management system. They commonly like to make some folders & handle the data management themselves with bad results every single time. Having to train them in Windchill Intralink 10.1 is no bargain either. Currently it’s an ongoing battle but one that, so far, I’ve been able to win. Quality drawings = quality products.





Regards,


Joe S.

P
ptc-1412741-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 16, 2014
I also have to disagree with the word SHALL. This means an absolute requirement, both in interpreting existing specifications (ASME), and in writing our own.

While not on our internal MBE committee, in my opinion it seems we are creating the drawing (lighter version), or critical dimensions in the model. Views are created in the model that look like a drawing when the appropriate dimensions are shown, and can even be printed.

So, one could say the drawing is not really going away totally, just taking on a different form, and different way to view it.

It will take time…

Doug Pogatetz

Mechanical Design Engineer
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008-1098
M
mlocascio1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 16, 2014
I agree with that too. The words we use should be important enough to matter. If we don’t want to mean one thing it should not be written down that way. That, however, does lead me into thinking about A LOT of things that “should” be done according to what is written on a piece of paper.



Michael P. Locascio


S
23-Emerald III
StephenW23-Emerald III
23-Emerald III
March 17, 2014
ASME Y14.100 4.26.3 defines shall and should.

Shall is a manadatory requirement.
Should is nonmandatory provision


[cid:image003.png@01CF41AE.81735D10]



W
wfalco16-Pearl
16-Pearl
March 17, 2014
I gotta say....in the biz 30 years and "must" "shall" "to be" are
mysterious commands. Regardless at what level you'd like to invoke them
- they are still things that are be requested - and therefore do become
equal.


B
23-Emerald III
BenLoosli23-Emerald III
23-Emerald III
March 17, 2014
Pro/E did not have a drafting module until rev 3 or 4.
UG2 had a drafting module in the original release as it was a rewrite/ported enhanced version of UG1.
UG1 in 1978 did not have an initial drafting module, but it was originally created for the manufacturing world as a graphical extension to UniAPT. I first used UniAPT in 1973 and Unigraphics didn’t come out for another 5 years. My first CAD system was Applicon 880 in the fall of 1977.
S
sshannon1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 18, 2014
There you go
M
mlocascio1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 18, 2014
Well said. There is nothing wrong with progress as long as it keeps on grounded on established and proven principles.



Michael P. Locascio


J
JMSCRA1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 18, 2014
Disclaimer: This is my opinion based on my own personal experiences.
I have been in this business for almost 47 years and the best detailers by far are those who came into the CAD world with a solid background in doing drawings with paper and pencil, mylar and plastic S or K lead, etc. You know “the old schoolers”. Being an excellent modeler does not necessarily make you a great or even good draftsman. If a person has a good drafting background their chances of being a great modeler are enhanced mostly because of the mindset and thought processes that it takes to be a good draftsman.

John M. Scranton
Manager Design Drafting
and Configuration Management
Ultra Electronics - USSI
4868 E. Park 30 Dr.
Columbia City, IN 46725-8869
•Voice: 260.248.3576
•Fax; 260.248.3509
[cid:image001.png@01CF42B7.46998BB0]
[cid:image004.jpg@01CF42B7.46998BB0]
Show more replies
Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement