What's new
What's new

Drawing to scale

Mtndew

Diamond
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Location
Michigan
In today's age of Cad/Cam where virtually every print we get nowadays is a digital file, can someone tell me the purpose of drawing/designing a part that is NOT to scale?
 
Shortcuts and hacks.

I was doing a floor layout for a cardboard baler, and apparently, the company fired all the
draftsman, and the sales man made his own Autocad drawing/layout.

By taking pre-drawn sections (baler, feeder, etc) he would quickly send you a file.

I found he just manually eddited the dimensions (text editor) to suit what he wanted.

And then there was a famous "Hi quality" german made spin balancer machine that just
hacked their way thru drawings, no rhyme nor reason. I wasted plenty of time trying
to figure out what scale they had used, nothing lined up.

"It looked good on paper"
 
In today's age of Cad/Cam where virtually every print we get nowadays is a digital file, can someone tell me the purpose of drawing/designing a part that is NOT to scale?

Not too sure any reason. If I ever got a non scale drawing, the engineer better make sure he marks what scale he used otherwise I wouldn't waste time dicking around with it. Unless he is willing to pay for that extra time.
 
I imagine parts will always be designed to scale. Drawing to scale is another matter. As a CAD guy and detailer, drawing to another scale had many reasons and still do today. Usually it was to fit large parts on a small sheet of paper, relatively. Drawing a large injection mold and having it fit on a "D" sized sheet. Today, there will always be a need to blow up small detail so it can understood. I do find people getting really sloppy nowadays.

Paul
 
I imagine parts will always be designed to scale. Drawing to scale is another matter. As a CAD guy and detailer, drawing to another scale had many reasons and still do today. Usually it was to fit large parts on a small sheet of paper, relatively. Drawing a large injection mold and having it fit on a "D" sized sheet. Today, there will always be a need to blow up small detail so it can understood. I do find people getting really sloppy nowadays.

Paul

Drawing with a pencil and paper I can understand, but a D sized sheet (I'm assuming you're talking about the print template) can still be scaled to infinity to accomodate the parts.
 
The only reason for not drawing to scale (other than not having the ability to do so) is when certain features need to be exaggerated. An example would be something like a 4" x 1" x 6' bar where all of the machine work was near the ends. The bar would be drawn with the center part missing so the detail at the ends could be clearly shown. The 6' dimension would be shown from end to end and the drawing marked "Not to Scale".
 
The only reason for not drawing to scale (other than not having the ability to do so) is when certain features need to be exaggerated. An example would be something like a 4" x 1" x 6' bar where all of the machine work was near the ends. The bar would be drawn with the center part missing so the detail at the ends could be clearly shown. The 6' dimension would be shown from end to end and the drawing marked "Not to Scale".

I get that, but I'm mainly referring to the cad files that the customer sends me to machine his parts from.
Solid models, 2D wireframe, etc.. every single one of them are either 1/2 scale or 1/4 scale. It's so irritating. And these aren't big parts by any means.
 
I get that, but I'm mainly referring to the cad files that the customer sends me to machine his parts from.
Solid models, 2D wireframe, etc.. every single one of them are either 1/2 scale or 1/4 scale. It's so irritating. And these aren't big parts by any means.



Old habits die hard.
 
It is hard not to draw to scale, however when you get the print some times the scale is "Scale to Fit" so, while it is to some scale, no one knows what that may be, but it fills up the sheet nicely.
 
You ain't seen nothing until you see one of the old Boeing dash number drawings on paper.

There was a generic drawing of the part with all dimensions as A, B, C, D, etc.

Off to the side is a chart showing the various part versions as dash numbers, like XXX-1, -2 and so on for the different size fittings and O-rings with the values for the A, B, C dimensions. At first glance you can't tell if the -2 part is long and skinny or short and stubby. Depending on dash number it might fit in the palm of your hand or be huge. You study the chart to see what the overall dimension of your part needs to be, but to be sure basically you have to re-draw the part to see if it even fits your machine capabilities. And, you check the revisions to see what those are about.


.

These are known as "Tabulated" drawings.
 
You ain't seen nothing until you see one of the old Boeing dash number drawings on paper.

There was a generic drawing of the part with all dimensions as A, B, C, D, etc.

Off to the side is a chart showing the various part versions as dash numbers, like XXX-1, -2 and so on for the different size fittings and O-rings with the values for the A, B, C dimensions. At first glance you can't tell if the -2 part is long and skinny or short and stubby. .

These are known as "Tabulated" drawings.
 
If it is a customer that you Want to work with, try and train them to give you the info the way you want it. I do that often if I know/feel like it will not offend them, if I think it will offend them to ask for info that is usable, then I figure the time I think it will take to convert their info into something usable and account for that in the quote. I tend to do alot of weird stuff from customers that are not in industry and I have to show them what I want/need, then after that it is usually close to ready to use.

I have found that many people just end up thrown into the job of drawing and really don't know what they are doing or have any understanding of creating usable geometry or even why a person would want to. If these people are open to training and or suggestions it is OK, not ideal, but OK. If they don't care, then they get charged for it or it goes somewhere else.

Oh, and if this guy is giving you a dwg that is 1/2 or 1/4:1, that is technically to scale. I think what you want to say is draw it 1:1
 
I get that, but I'm mainly referring to the cad files that the customer sends me to machine his parts from.
Solid models, 2D wireframe, etc.. every single one of them are either 1/2 scale or 1/4 scale. It's so irritating. And these aren't big parts by any means.

Sounds like they are using a drawing for a larger part as a template and not changing the scale.
 
No reason at all. The only issue and it really wasn't an issue was getting drawings from civil engineering firms.
They drew that one unit was 1' not 1". Easy enough to scale up by 12 or down by 12 if it went back to them,
we were architects.

But for mechanical no reason at all. And if someone did I would be on the phone drilling them. Had a machinist
I worked with, that worked a a shop in the south bay and did work for HP. Got a drawing and I think he said it was
brass and the only only material they could get was a huge round slug to machine down and gave a price of like 30k for
the part and HP didn't flinch at the price so they started. Few weeks later they finish and deliver the part and the engineer
freaks out. The part was like 8x the size he wanted. And HP paid to have the right size made.
 
You ain't seen nothing until you see one of the old Boeing dash number drawings on paper.

One I remember well was for an installation tool to stretch O-rings over hydraulic fittings without danger of damage from the sharp threads.. The drawing was originally done in the 1940's with dozens of revisions over the years.

There was a generic drawing of the part with all dimensions as A, B, C, D, etc.

Off to the side is a chart showing the various part versions as dash numbers, like XXX-1, -2 and so on for the different size fittings and O-rings with the values for the A, B, C dimensions. At first glance you can't tell if the -2 part is long and skinny or short and stubby. Depending on dash number it might fit in the palm of your hand or be huge. You study the chart to see what the overall dimension of your part needs to be, but to be sure basically you have to re-draw the part to see if it even fits your machine capabilities. And, you check the revisions to see what those are about.


I know Boeing has quite a crew of contract workers going through these old drawings putting them on Catia. In itself that's not an easy thing to do. My neighbor did that for years.

OMG those are the worst kind!
A friend of mine was an engineer at Delphi, I asked him why they put all the dimensions in a box in the corner, he said "because it's easier".
I said.. easier for who?? Not for the person that's making your fucking part! You're just jacking up the price.
 
In the early days, when CAD was just coming around, there were 2 ways of making a drawing. One group would would scale the part to fit the format, the other would scale the format, leaving the part "full scale". Each group had their reasons why "their way" was the right way. These days with paper space, 3D solids modeling and soon MBD (Model Based Definition) it doesn't make sense that anyone would not model full scale.

J.
 
I'm not sure I am understanding the problem. If you are being sent a CAD file, surely any scale you want is but one or two mouse clicks away? And doesn't your CAD system give you correct dimensions no matter what the scale? You can't hold a ruler up to the screen to get accurate dimensions in any case....

If this is the biggest problem in your day, you have an easy life!
 
I'm not sure I am understanding the problem. If you are being sent a CAD file, surely any scale you want is but one or two mouse clicks away? And doesn't your CAD system give you correct dimensions no matter what the scale? You can't hold a ruler up to the screen to get accurate dimensions in any case....

If this is the biggest problem in your day, you have an easy life!

In my case, the files were not in any scale, x plane might be 2x, y plane 1/3x, z plane 1/2x.
"Crayola CAD"

Was not simply a proportional problem.
 








 
Back
Top