Drawing View Orientation - 1st vs 3rd Angle (Globally)

[bnoll]

Today my company has the requirement to create multiple drawings of the same model to support 1st and 3rd angle projection requirements in multiple factories.  I am seeking others input as to how companies may have handle this situation as it is duplicate work.  While a config option change allows for new view to be created in a different orientation, it does not update or change those views already on the drawing.

This seems quite simple as globally the company should decide on one angle of precision, but are there other options?  I have heard the term "declared" views, but ASME Y14.3 does not specify the use of these, nor can I find documentation online to support this theory.  Maybe they are technically known as something else?

Just looking for other opinions or suggestions.

Thanks much!

Brian

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.

[RonSt.Pierre]

First of all, a model does not have defined "views", only the drawing does.

With that being said, it is conceivable to create two separate drawings that point to the same model.

One drawing could use a first angle.dtl while the other uses a thirdangle.dtl.

Units could possible be troublesome if they need to be different...

There is a third option - view arrow method.

ron

[RonSt.Pierre]

found it...

[RonSt.Pierre]

after further digesting this thought....

The requirement per ISO 120 or ASMEY14.3 is to declare the use of one of three types of view projection methods.

This can be pictorially or written.

As long as this is defined, only one drawing should be needed.

[BenLoosli]

The issue with using a single projection type, be it 1st or 3rd angle or arrows, is the end users have become trained/used to seeing the drawing in a certain orientation. We had issues at a prior company when we went to a single 3rd angle projection and the european plant had to adjust to reading the drawings differently as they were used to 1st angle. While the software and ISO/ASME standards may allow a single view orientation to be applied globally, the standards do not take into consideration the of decades of using a certain method in the plant. Training is one method to remind the people using the drawings that this is the new method, how do you handle the existing drawings being used for current production. This would have the people reading them having to check each drawing to be sure they have the proper view orientation in their mind for every drawing. Redrawing all current production drawings to the new orientation method is not practical or cost effective.

[RonSt.Pierre]

Culture is another element to the puzzle, I agree.  And people do not like change which is unfortunate.  Life is fraught with vicissitudes.

To me, it's no different than trying to have a meeting with someone from China speaking broken english - after a while, you both get the jist of it.

I worked for Bosch, a german based company, in the US.  I fully understand the issues with drawing presentations.  Europe working in 1st angle, US working in third while having customers (GM) working in Arrow Method.

In my honest opinion: learn the language, it's really not that hard.

[bnoll]

I agree 100% with Ben, the requirement is not driven from local standards, it is a culture one has been used to and trained on for years.  I imagine for those companies that have been successful with this, management has taken the stance to adopt one method and made sure appropriate training was provided "globally" to all manufacturing facilities.

Today our design facilities are rouge.  We are attempting to globally work out of one PDM system, using the same version of Creo.  We are also deploying a method that includes only ONE model with multiple drawing variants as needed.  The base or first variant is typically in English and 3rd angle projection.  A local variant could be Chinese with 1st angle projection.  Another could be Spanish in 3rd angle projection.  Another could be French with 1st angle projection.

Using the proper methods, standard symbols, standard notes, standard formats we can automate the creation of these variants to almost 100% (almost because placement of notes and translations may utilize more room on drawing).  When you throw in angle of projection, my success rate drops considerably because it only switches the drawing setup option.  You basically have to recreate all the views in the new projection.

We have been struggling, but it seems I will need to put together these examples and let management find a cure.

Thanks for the responses folks!

[RonSt.Pierre]

An option could be to leverage global variety with a work flow method

I believe we all agree modeling is not an issue, it is only the drawings. (except for perhaps units)

A rough example:

Design stage: if created in US, then basic drawings done in 3rd angle for example.

in WC, provide ample statuses for work flow stages ie design, design freeze, transfer, manufacture,  obsolete (or 10, 20, ...-50)

this way, the location responsible for product creation, can keep it localized to prepare product requirements to customer satisfaction.

Should a product be released, go to the manufacturing stage, otherwise, it dies here.

Manufacturing stage: models retrieved at location (via pdm); manufacturing drawings are then created to localized "flavor".

You will find there is going to be mind set differences in manufacturing too.

I refer to, for example ISO 2768, especially -2.  If you know this standard, you will understand what I mean.

This may be a solution or it may jog a thought.

Good luck!

[bnoll]

Ron -

We have already agreed to metric modeling units, so that is a plus.  If needed we will dual dimension drawings, with metric as primary, imperial as secondary.

Prior to me taking over as Product Design Manager of our Compressor group, the previous manager was going through an effort to create "one" drawing globally.  This has turned into a nightmare to manage, as each manufacturing facility wants something different.  Yes, this may be beneficial to others in the business (procurement), it was a huge detriment to our design cycle schedules, and honestly that is the only thing looked at from our management.

We are in the process of revamping our entire design process and forming a plan to reduce the overall commitment as best we can.  We all agree the "one" drawing approach is not the right solution for this, except for our manufacturing facilities because they basically got a working drawing for free from engineering.

I have defined a matrix of drawing differences from engineering and all manufacturing facilitates and most can be handled with proper procedures and standardized methods, but I cannot get over this angle of projection hurdle.  We have built in time for the local manufacturing facilities to determine if they can use the base engineering drawing, but if they cannot we want a very quick automated solution to create these local variants.

The tool is developed, just need to break this hurdle.

Again, thanks for the comments.

[Kevin]

Something else to think about, the views aren't different on first and third angle projection, what's different is the positioning of the views. You also may not need to do as much work as you think depending on the complexity of the drawing. When you change the angle of projection in your *.dtl, you can convert the projection of views already defined by changing the projection view to a general view and applying the setting then changing the view back to a projection. The views will update and dimensions remain on the drawing. There will be clean-up such as re-positioning dimensions or moving them to appropriate views and making sure auxiliary views are positioned correctly.