correction model

[MassiVonWeizen]

Ironmike, ok your design, but so you create confusion because I don't think a student is required to quote in that way that then he wouldn't even know if they were asked for clarification.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Ironmike, ok your design, but so you create confusion because I don't think a student is required to quote in that way that then he wouldn't even know if they were asked for clarification.

I'm sorry, I should have said that it's confusing.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

martec, respond so

I would have added the rays and bonanotte

from the impression that you care. It is not so, perhaps but this is the impression that you give. if then it is considered that the design from the first post to now is almost equal. . .

I answer your quotas

lack the size of the fins in which the lamature are madeI try to correct

instead you have not put them, in the vertical width (see 120 of the drawing of ironmike) in the horizontal width (see 160 drawing of ironmike)

missing the width of the half tube
Noon I understand what you mean specifically, I added the perpendicular intersection to a-a

width perhaps made you confusion; but would be that value of 95.94 (47.97*2) of ironmike design

missing the depths of processing from 3680

that is not a depth, but what advances of a depth and is not known whether it is symmetric or not

only one hole per head is listed in the two sections and holes are missingI added x2 to everyone

that does not make clear the design. putting quotas on all holes was so tiring?

the odds of the holes are scattered on several views16 holes, you mean?

Yes. I have already written that the size of a single processing, except for exceptions, but this is not, must be put on the same view not to force the operator to look around the sheet

I don't know how to add it. or gives me the radius as at the beginning or not from the quota. Technical advice?

see ironmike design.
I personally would have put, as I tried to explain, the diametral quotas on the x-x section (design of ironmike) where there are also the processing depths for the reason explained above.
it also serves quota 48 to define the working of the plan; 48 is the sum of 46.4+1.6. but these are the finished measures instead it is important because it is the measurement of the raw piece before processing (the final 46.4 should be put in parentheses because it is not functional).
in the design of iironmike those odds the inside of the x-x section do not serve anything because it measures and occurs the diameter
in both designs missing the outer radius of the semi-tube

If you, as I wrote, had tried to remake the model with your design you would have noticed how much information was missing; If you asked a classmate to do it again, you would have noticed that they were missing even more

 

[baleritec]

martec, answer that way from the impression that you care about it. It is not so, perhaps but this is the impression that you give. if then it is considered that the design from the first post to now is almost equal. . .

I answer your quotas

instead you have not put them, in the vertical width (see 120 of the drawing of ironmike) in the horizontal width (see 160 drawing of ironmike)

width perhaps made you confusion; but would be that value of 95.94 (47.97*2) of ironmike design

that is not a depth, but what advances of a depth and is not known whether it is symmetric or not

that does not make clear the design. putting quotas on all holes was so tiring?

Yes. I have already written that the size of a single processing, except for exceptions, but this is not, must be put on the same view not to force the operator to look around the sheet

see ironmike design.
I personally would have put, as I tried to explain, the diametral quotas on the x-x section (design of ironmike) where there are also the processing depths for the reason explained above.
it also serves quota 48 to define the working of the plan; 48 is the sum of 46.4+1.6. but these are the finished measures instead it is important because it is the measurement of the raw piece before processing (the final 46.4 should be put in parentheses because it is not functional).
in the design of iironmike those odds the inside of the x-x section do not serve anything because it measures and occurs the diameter
in both designs missing the outer radius of the semi-tube

If you, as I wrote, had tried to remake the model with your design you would have noticed how much information was missing; If you asked a classmate to do it again, you would have noticed that they were missing even more

I certainly expressed myself badly, but I care a lot about learning. in that sentence, as I was not given an answer (and I do not claim it) on how to quote those diameters as it did ironmike, I wanted to make it clear that I did not know how to use the function, that I never used it, we did not face it at school.

I reread everything well and answer with drawing.

p.s. I had to link the 3d because the allega function did not take it.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

since I was not given answer (and I do not claim it) on how to quote those diameters

I don't understand this. You mean you don't know how to turn a radial share into diametrical or what?
if you want to quote the diameters in the x-x section instead you have to draw a sketch axis (so draw a sketch line and set it as a construction), quotate the entities using the construction line to create the diametral quota, select with the right button the lines of the quota that remain in the vacuum and hide them http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/spezzare-una-quota.18314/#post-287852the allega function provides compressed files. buy me the file and attach it

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

just to understand, that as I predict well, but evil rocket, an image is clearer than a hundred words
I would have quoted the work in this way; But it must be said that you have to know the software a little bit, otherwise you can't do it.
(The size is random because I now ran a model and did not use your

 

[IronMike87]

in the design of iironmike those odds the inside of the x-x section do not serve anything because it measures and occurs the diameter

In fact, it's true... because of the rush.
I could at least put them in brackets... ops

I don't understand this. You mean you don't know how to turn a radial share into diametrical or what?
if you want to quote the diameters in the x-x section instead you have to draw a sketch axis (so draw a sketch line and set it as a construction), quotate the entities using the construction line to create the diametral quota, select with the right button the lines of the quota that remain in the vacuum and hide them http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/spezzare-una-quota.18314/#post-287852the allega function provides compressed files. buy me the file and attach it

mah... I guess he means that he doesn't know how to turn the share into sw
that should not be so, but unfortunately at first can stand there (or at least, I see it plausible as what)

in the second "tendina" within the quota menu, there are all possible display variants to be associated with that quota.
in the specific case of radial/diameter quotas:

here the link of the site from which the image comeshttps://www.solidsolutions.co.uk/bl...ing-dimensions-other-than-radii/#.xjgf7lvkhhe

 

[baleritec]

just to understand, that as I predict well, but evil rocket, an image is clearer than a hundred words
I would have quoted the work in this way; But it must be said that you have to know the software a little bit, otherwise you can't do it.
(The size is random because I now ran a model and did not use your

I tried to practice everything you explained to me.
I have always the fear of adding extra quotas, because I was taught so and I have been corrected so many quotas in this sense.
I added quota 48 in the section, because I couldn't otherwise in the other... I don't know if that's right.

not for me, but the same speech for the holes is worth the r16 fittings, if I add the quotas to all 4 I'm sure that it is corrected so I don't know well how to behave
we have never quoted as ironmike did, placing the 0 to the half-carry and we still have to get to quota the work of the holes in that way

 

[baleritec]

I forgot the r16 fittings

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Better.
the r16 rays do not need to put all four.
the holes, in my opinion, instead, because being crossed could be misinterpreted in the reading of the drawing.
the hole is not so high; you put the angle (90°) so you know the tool to use and the depth because this can be handled with the machine while the diameter can only verify it.
think about what measures need decimal precision.
in section to one of the quotas is not functional and should be placed in brackets

 

[baleritec]

I have 2 questions about quotas before posting the correct design:

- how do I fold quota association lines (such as 25.6 holes in ironmike design)? I searched on the web and in the property of the document - quotas and in the menu side by side, but I failed

- as a ratio of 90°? overwriting the value doubles

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

in the property manager of the quota there are three cards. one manages the properties of the value (tolerance, decimals, value...), another display parameters (fresh, lines and for last option the layout of the text that serves you), the third I can not describe the use. However it is enough that on open tab you press on the question mark at the top right or f1 to be sent to the relative page of the online guide

the last question I didn't get, command quota and select the edges of the rigging and you have the corner. a quota never overwrites

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

first pagepropertymanager value of sharesecond tabpropertymanager association lines (last custom text location option)
third partypropertymanager another quota

 

[baleritec]

in the property manager of the quota there are three cards. one manages the properties of the value (tolerance, decimals, value...), another display parameters (fresh, lines and for last option the layout of the text that serves you), the third I can not describe the use. However it is enough that on open tab you press on the question mark at the top right or f1 to be sent to the relative page of the online guide

I have already seen the tutorial going to the question mark in the property manager, I selected "open association line" and popped "use the bending length", but the quota remains straight

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I repeat

(last custom text location option)

 

[baleritec]

I repeat

Sorry, I read after sending the post

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Sorry, I read after sending the post

no problem

 

[IronMike87]

I forgot the r16 fittings
View attachment 52905

talking about finesses...

in section a-to quota 48 is a radius. I would quote (r48) . in parentheses because you have already expressed it as a diameter in the c-c section and it would be redundant

in section b-b quoti 1,6 as theoretical share of the machining center.... but the diameters put them in the other section. Considering that the diameter machining center is so little "centered" by the piece's support plan, it could give interpretation problems. better share everything in one section.


for the quotation of the bevels:

in realtà ho visto anche xy x xy° in some drawings. I doubt it is correct at the level of legislation, but acceptable. . .