marcof
Guest
I had to googlare to know who adrian newey was. I thought he was the author of an important technical drawing manual. . .
It seems to me that this story is beginning to become a matter of principle, so maybe you should go to your exposer and tell him that, in one of the two views, there are two lines and three semicircles (because it is drawn to segugio penis) so it is not possible to define the geometry of that piece in order to realize its isometric view therefore you claim that it gives you another exercise done according to the current norms and with all crypts.
I only remind you that from the moment you posted the image (that you had been under an eye for a while I imagine) at this time not only you could have done that isometric view, but also the model for the foundry and you probably would already have in hand your piece in cast iron, encompassing all this time three hours of resumption on the orthogonal projections.
SHIREN
Guest
:hahahah:
Hello, Marco. .
Good morning
the design posted has a technique years 60/70
no more current to today's needs
here I have to acknowledge drawing using only the three d
(only for these cases)
the upper view with the flangetta a pear r 40
is seen from the six of the (sez) and therefore sees the three diameters 72 82 92
the lower part of the dex view is seen according to arrow indications
and sees the flange diameter 260 and the flangetta nose below
diameter 260 that could put on the sez to six
we say that today one cannot rely on a person or student to the first weapons of this kind
chewing drawing makes a moment of fatigue in interpreting the conditions of drawing post
today and out of every logic we are accustomed to the isometric view of the three d
that "light" you
Have a good day
Thank you very much
marcof
Guest
hi shiren, good morning to you. I am happy to have delighted you with the day:
If you tell me that the removal of the lines of the flange to rhombus (why the call to pear?) and the hole is entirely arbitrary I agree, that you do not understand how that piece is done absolutely no. if you do not understand missing the basics of the technical design.
I'm going to go, but...
Histometric and prospective views have always been the best form of representation to convey to our brain in an immediate and uncontrollable way the information necessary to imagine a real solid object. It is not a cad3d invention.
see this engineer for example http://tinyurl.com/p9dx8wfalso barozzi iacopo, architect quite known, and that was not precisely the last pyrla in the matter of drawing and detailed description of three-dimensional "objects" on a sheet of paper, even in the views that we could define frontal or in the plant shaded and made as much perspective effects as possible to facilitate the understanding of the object 3d.
idem throughout the next technical negotiation, until the manuals of the 20's and 30's of the last century.
the wireframe as we mean today was practically non-existent.
2d is a language that must always be "decrypted" even when properly presented, regardless of how quickly each of us understands it according to the exercise of reading of that language to which he was forced. the 3d, represented on a sheet of paper or even better manipulated on a monitor, is not in this sense misinterpretable and would not give rise to this thread.
the thread was born from the exact opposite need and against nature. repent sinners! :biggrin:
SHIREN
Guest
:hahah: ingegniere
grande
Hello Marco
I cut and stitched the design missing the inside sez but it's just to give an idea
that designer instead of roasting and making a series of roelets
would have done something simple
Perhaps the discussion would not have opened it
Thank you very much
