Skip to main content
1-Visitor
August 17, 2012
Solved

Tolerance display in annotation note

  • August 17, 2012
  • 1 reply
  • 19211 views

Hi, I'm trying to create an annotation note in the model. Below is an example of how the annotation is constructed.

Capture.PNG

And here is what the note looks like with dimensional values shown.

Capture.PNG

I would like to display the tolerance as a side-by-side limits, not over/under limits (ex. .0937-.0962... .112-.172).

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Jason


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.
Best answer by BrianMartin

Wow... I'm just getting to all these posts from back in August! I'm really sorry I fell off the map but the world caved in on me over the past 6 weeks or so...

I realize this is probably so old no one even cares anymore... but there is a way to do what you're asking for.

First, rule #1: never take anything PTC technical support says as gospel...ever. At least half the time they'll tell you something is impossible even when it is possible. Often PTC technical support doesn't understand their own product as well as the designers and engineers that use it every single day. They're not very flexible. If the "answer" to your question is not in their system, "it's impossible".

Sometimes you get lucky and you'll get a support tech that actually attempts to help you. Maybe they spend 5 minutes trying to resolve your issue. They try all the same buttons and switches you've already tried, fail, throw their hands up, and proclaim "it's impossible".

Well, no, it's not impossible. It's a little bit of a pain in the neck but it's certainly not impossible. In my opinion, PTC's technical support personnel should know this software inside and out. They should be able to give you an answer and then let you decide if the method required to incorporate that answer is too much work. But the tech support personnel do not know the software... they're basically about as good as your everyday average "power user". They know a bit more than the basics- and the rest they get from their knowledgebase. If the answer isn't there- :shrug: oh well, it's impossible.

But enough pontificating... what's the solution?

Whenever you have a dimension with a plus/minus or symmetric dimension, you can access the values of those dimensions using parameters in a relation. Here's an excerpt from the help files:

tol_help.png

So then... set your dimensions in the model to plus/minus even though you want to display limits. This will allow you to access the tp (positive tolerance) and tm (negative tolerance) values for the dimension as well as the dimension itself. Create a relation to generate the limit values. If you were interested in generating the limits for dimensions &d14, the relations might look like this:

x1 = d14 + tp14

x2 = d14 - tm14

d14 is the dimension number (use switch symbols to see the dimension numbers)

tp14 is the upper tolerance value for the d14 dimension

tm14 is the lower tolerance value for the d14 dimension

Change the "14" to whatever number dimension you're intersted in.

In your note, simply use &x1 and &x2 to access the limits dimensions.

tol_help2.png

The only trick here is where to place these relations. You can put them in the part- but this is cumbersome. I'd suggest putting them in feature relations. In the image below, notice the relations window is set to "FEATURE" (upper left hand corner of the relations window). The relations I used are displayed. Also, you can see the dimension values toggled using the switch symbols command. You can see that the dimension number is "0" (zero). The relations do not clutter the part because they're stored in the feature. Those relations give you the ability to display your limits dimensions however you wish in your note. (Click the image to see a larger version)

Pretty doggone simple... and not nearly as "impossible" as you were led to believe.

tol_help3.png

The just serves to illustrate my earlier point... surely someone working for PTC as a full time tech support person should be able to offer up such a simple, convenient solution. Why don't they? Anyone... anyone... Bueller?

Hope that helps!

-Brian

1 reply

17-Peridot
August 17, 2012

See if this works:

default_tolerance_display_style

Controls the spacing and vertical justification of tolerance values relative to the nominal dimension according to ASME or ISO drawing standards.

For dimensions set to limits tolerance, this Detail option additionally controls the appearance of limits as in-line (next to each other separated by a dash) or stacked (one on top of the other). That is, when the value is set to std_asme, limits will appear in-line, and when the value is set to std_iso, limits will appear stacked.

Note

This Detail option controls the display style of dimensions when their tolerance mode is set to anything other than nominal.

Default and Available Settings

  • std_asme*–Applies American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Limits appear in-line.
  • std_iso—Applies International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Limits appear stacked.
jmayer1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
August 17, 2012

Thank you for the reply.

default_tolerance_display_style is already set to std_asme*

I just received confirmation that it is not an option to have side-by-side limit tolerance in an annotation from our PTC Technical Specialist.

I was hoping there was a way, but apparently not.

Thanks,

Jason

17-Peridot
August 18, 2012

This is pretty ugly.

I made notes from 2 displayed dimensions.

The inline dimension was dimensioned from the end of the cylinder, and the over/under was using a dimension in section of the cylinder.

hole_callout_in_note.PNG

I'd say there is a bug here somewhere. ...and huge opportunity for some enhancements (Brian?).

Obviously, neither is acceptable.