we say better, if you want to represent any element through technical design You must have use at least two views, one front and the other orthogonal at the first, in your case the view from above is the most indicated.good evening to all,I am a new entry..I need some advice on the projection of a plate that has this front view. to represent in true shape the 2 sloping faces can I make a tipping using the plan in red?
Thank you.
No.good evening to all,I am a new entry..I need some advice on the projection of a plate that has this front view. to truly represent the 2 sloping faces I can make a tipping using the red top?
grazie
It's true in practice. .I think the auxiliary view over the tilted plane is unnecessary only to quote the holes.
Yeah. if you use the compass to "project" the points; the important thing is that the resulting view lies on a "parallel plane" to those tilted faces.. I mean, you see them front.I had designed this way, projecting the significant points with the compass on the red plane and then projecting them into the po. ...is this representation correct? .
In my opinion, in this case, we need the view in the plant to quote the 4 central holes, plus two local overturns on the front for quoater the remaining hole and the gaps.I had designed this way, projecting the significant points with the compass on the red plane and then projecting them into the po. Is this representation correct? I attach a sketch (not accurate) and the original image of the piece I must represent.
Correct!I decided to do it with auxiliary views because prof prefers them. Is this representation correct with the broken piece in 3 parts? the photo is not very sharp, in correspondence of the breaks there is zigzagata line. Thank you.
Not even!Does it hurt if I quote the lengths in the front view?