number of necessary views [technical drawing]

[reye]

Hello, everyone.
in the attached design is represented the interconnection of two cylinders with orthogonal axis to a cylinder placed vertically.
What are the views to choose to best represent it according to European law? I hypothesized that the side ones are necessary. .
Thank you.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I think only the view down.

 

[Exatem]

I think only the view down.

here we are again in disagreement:
without side view how do you determine the height of the axles compared to the base plane?

 

[Fulvio Romano]

here we are again in disagreement:

Let's embrace the cross! :wink:

without side view how do you determine the height of the axles compared to the base plane?

According to me, by listing the diameters that are cylindrical, with a note on a quota write that the axes are all round and the rest the quoti in the view said.

It seems to me wasted to make a view only to inform that the cylinders have flat axes. or did I not understand the question?

 

[Ivan1990]

In my opinion, the two views represented in pdf are the minimum necessary to provide a clear reading for everyone, of the design.

 

[vale61]

... what's better than making two views to make you understand that the axes are on the same floor?

that (who has to build it) as from one eye to the drawing already understands everything, no?

I prefer to make an extra view rather than to put a note, it will be that they immediately taught me that first I have to solve the piece graphically and then add notes only when the design fails to clarify everything... then if this design turns around the lesser known world I have to put better.

now with our "super 3d" to make an extra view costs 0, when I was on the tecnigraph it broke me... and the pencil and the rubber and the china and the shiny...

Bye-bye.

 

[Exatem]

Let's embrace the cross! :wink:
According to me, by listing the diameters that are cylindrical, with a note on a quota write that the axes are all round and the rest the quoti in the view said.

It seems to me wasted to make a view only to inform that the cylinders have flat axes. or did I not understand the question?

No, I didn't explain.
the view in the plant informs that they are cylinders and that the axes of the horizontal cylinders are round but does not tell you their distance from the horizontal plane.
the two views as from pdf are indispensable.

 

[PierArg]

... what's better than making two views to make you understand that the axes are on the same floor?

that (who has to build it) as from one eye to the drawing already understands everything, no?

I prefer to make an extra view rather than to put a note, it will be that they immediately taught me that first I have to solve the piece graphically and then add notes only when the design fails to clarify everything... then if this design turns around the lesser known world I have to put better.

now with our "super 3d" to make an extra view costs 0, when I was on the tecnigraph it broke me... and the pencil and the rubber and the china and the shiny...

Bye-bye.

ciao,quoto in pieno!with 2 clicks you generate a new view and you just have to put an extra fee.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

... what's better than making two views to make you understand that the axes are on the same floor?

I learned the exact opposite. if a view is useless it should be avoided. increases the risk of errors and/or misunderstandings.

No, I didn't explain.
the view in the plant informs that they are cylinders and that the axes of the horizontal cylinders are round but does not tell you their distance from the horizontal plane.
the two views as from pdf are indispensable.

what information is missing in the attached drawing?

 

[maxopus]

I think the two schools of thought depend only on the instrument used.
who uses a cad 2d tends to use fewer possible views (because for each change you need to check all views) and more annotations.
who uses a cad 3d puts us two seconds to insert an extra view and the control of changes is required to the tool as it is enough to change the model.

I prefer the second because I use a 3d software, and inserting a projection and maybe an assonometric view I think to provide a much more intuitive data from the graphic point of view.

 

[Exatem]

what information is missing in the attached drawing?

None.
I just realized you were leaving the view in the plant. in this case the second view became indispensable as I explained in my previous post.
As you have proposed, it is more than enough for its realization.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

i think the two schools of thought depend only on the instrument used.
who uses a cad 2d tends to use fewer possible views (because for each change you need to check all views) and more annotations.
who uses a cad 3d puts us two seconds to insert an extra view and the control of changes is required to the tool as it is enough to change the model.

i prefer the second because i use a 3d software, and inserting a projection and maybe an assonometric view i think to provide a much more intuitive data from the graphic point of view.

i also use 3d, but the technical drawing rules speak clear. the views must be only those strictly necessary.

that then, as you say, probably the rules should be updated, okay, here you probably are right.

 

[IPdesign]

I'm sorry, can I get this?

I believe that the only sight of lightning can deceive

I attach an example of how I see it,
look at the 2 pdf

I would put the 2 views:biggrin:View attachment test1.pdfView attachment test2.pdf

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I'm sorry, can I get this?

I believe that the only sight of lightning can deceive

I attach an example of how I see it,
look at the 2 pdf

I would put the 2 views:biggrin:

actually...I wanted to put the symbol of complacentness, as mentioned in my previous post. I just found out that it doesn't exist, so I put that perpendicularity on it.

strange...the tolerance of flatness exists, but not of complacency.

However, it is enough to add parallelism between the two horizontal axes.

 

[PierArg]

I also use 3d, but the technical drawing rules speak clear. the views must be only those strictly necessary. . .

bye,
It is true, the norm says that it is only necessary to put the strictly necessary views. also at the technical drawing course is the first thing they teach.

But I think that today, with the help of the pc and software cad that allow to "push" views and sections instantly, more information fit into the design and better it is.
Obviously it is essential that they are well done and so as not to create misunderstandings.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

bye,
It is true, the norm says that it is only necessary to put the strictly necessary views. also at the technical drawing course is the first thing they teach.

But I think that today, with the help of the pc and software cad that allow to "push" views and sections instantly, more information fit into the design and better it is.
Obviously it is essential that they are well done and so as not to create misunderstandings.

I also believe that the road under my house should not be a stop, because there cars do not bother anyone, since the store in front closed.
But this doesn't allow me to park there.

I'm sophisticated, I know. He wanted to be just a joke! :biggrin:

 

[Ivan1990]

so much in the end, there are more and more roads to get the same result, eventually one fits working according to the operator who will make the project.

 

[gianluigi]

if as they say are n.3 tubes, perhaps it lacks the inside diameter or the thickness of the tube.
hello to titti gianluigi

 

[PierArg]

I also believe that the road under my house should not be a stop, because there cars do not bother anyone, since the store in front closed.
But this doesn't allow me to park there.

I'm sophisticated, I know. He wanted to be just a joke! :biggrin:

everyone sees it in his own way::finger:

I often put myself in the shoes of those who have to make the piece. given the times of today, where Unfortunately, Most are interinal today working at machine tools, tomorrow they go to gardeners, tomorrow the other waiters :frown:, it is not that they are so much to see if you have "respected the norm" but try to put into practice (at least worse) what you designed. even because they don't even know what the norm is.

 

[maxopus]

actually...I wanted to put the symbol of complacentness, as mentioned in my previous post. I just found out that it doesn't exist, so I put that perpendicularity on it.

strange...the tolerance of flatness exists, but not of complacency.

However, it is enough to add parallelism between the two horizontal axes.

Maybe after lunch I'm slower.
I did not understand how to indicate the symbol of parallelism on the view in the plant.
because the two axes are parallax compared to the view from above but, they are not compared to the side view.