I didn't have an issue with the fact that the bottom view was reversed. The question was more about the layout of the views. I understand that you can unfold the "projection planes box" to look like that (again aside from the fact whether it is a good practice or not) and the bottom view will...
Sorry for the confusion, this example doesn't directly relate to the original question of the view missing. It is about the bottom view being placed below the rear view. Now top view and bottom view are in reverse orientation from each other.
Something else I thought of. Does it mean that the example below is an allowable practice? Again, ignore the names of the views. They are there to clarify how I see the views being formed.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is called a discussion, you should try it sometime. To paraphrase your answer, the rear view is not projected based on your opinion. If you read my original question when I started this thread, I was attempting to figure out what the standard says about it...
What can I say, just when I think that I know something its time to revisit the basics again. That's why I come here, so you guys can tell me how its done.[pipe]
I think the standard is fine as it is. You have to play within the rules set by the standard. So if the standard leaves the room for interpretation, that room should be allowed on the drawing and we can discuss it. However the fundamentals should be clear to everybody involved with no room...
That's always a sign of weakness in any position when you ask a direct question and get a response about the number of years you've been doing it the same way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of experience, but is there a chance we can all learn something new...
Again based on what? Can you back up this statement? I provided you a direct quote from the ASME standard that all the drawings are based on, not from some "analytical geometry textbook".
You missed something above in one of my posts. You are wrong in thinking that one projected view is formed from another projected view. Each view is formed from the object/model and Y14.3 standard is quite clear about it: " 5.1 Orthographic Projection: "Orthographic projection is a system of...
Again, what is this statement based on? If it is not projected, then how is it formed? If it is not one of the principal orthographic views, then it is none of the other views described in the standard. Completely agree with you though on the fact that it obfuscates the drawing.
And that's based on what? That's taking it a step further than the standard intended. Y14.3 says: "6 PRINCIPAL ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEWS: The terms "top,"front," "bottom," "right side," "left side," and "rear" shall themselves not be used for naming views." It doesn't say the views can't be named or...
Not really. In my example it is still to the left of the front view, so you know which way the projection goes. You are just missing the adjacent side view that should be between those two.
Like this:
No argument from me here. I was just trying to see if there is anything in any of the standards that expressly prohibits it.
All I could find so far in Y14.3 is:
7.4 Two adjacent orthographic views are normally considered the minimum requirement to describe a three-dimensional object.
7.6 Any...
Like you said, there is a hack in SW to do just about anything. You can break alignment to the parent view, in this case the side view and create new alignment to the front view. Then it will move and maintain alignment with the front view.
If you mean this in terms of a CAD then it depends on the software. For example, in SW I can make a projected rear view from a side view and then delete the side view and the rear view is still going to be there. According to standard though, projected views are created from the object not...
Correct. The standard says: "The minimum number of views necessary to describe the part is shown" Does it mean that you can skip projected vies that are suppose to go between two other views though?
That was my suggestion as well, to use a removed view. However the question was raised if it was ok to leave it as is. Technically it is a projected view, it is just not in a "standard" sequence.
I ran across a drawing where the engineer had front, top and bottom views on the drawing but then next view to the side was the rear view. The justification was that the side view was "skipped". There was not really any room left on the sheet to put it above or below. I couldn't find anything...
Is there a definition of the term "sphericity" in the standard?
You are right that definition of circularity (i.e. roundness) is quite simple. However, how it relates to the profile tolerance of the ball surface (that ambiguous term sphericity) is not so much. For example, you seem to equate...
I agree with Garland here, this is how I learn too. The process might seem somewhat adversarial, but unless you try to defend your position quite often you won't get to the point of understanding where you where wrong. Look how much I've learnt from all of you guys about a simple ball!
Not...
