Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Bringing dimensions into drawing 3
- Thread starter LindseyAC
- Start date
-
1
- #2
You can dim the part with tolerances.
When in drawing view, go to "Insert/Model Items/select entire model".
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
When in drawing view, go to "Insert/Model Items/select entire model".
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
-
1
- #3
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
Whenever possible I add the tolerances to the model dimensions. That way I don't have to rethink the design intent when dimensioning the drawing ... or just in case somebody else does the detailing.
If the Insert > Model Items method is used, and tolerances are added to those dimensions, the tol's are propagated back into the model anyway.
Sometimes the model dims are not suitable for the I>MI method.
So basically it's your choice.
If the Insert > Model Items method is used, and tolerances are added to those dimensions, the tol's are propagated back into the model anyway.
Sometimes the model dims are not suitable for the I>MI method.
So basically it's your choice.
- Thread starter
- #4
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
A dimension used to create a feature in a model, may not reflect the design intent, or the manufacturing/inspection process.
I agree with CBL.
The design intent has to be there.
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
The design intent has to be there.
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
-
1
- #7
SteveMartin
Mechanical
Unfortunately, the answer is "it depends". When it makes sense I prefer to dimension the model the same way it will appear on the drawing. Often there are reasons to dimension the two differently. Usually these reasons boil down to attempts at reducing drawing clutter.
The most common example of different model/drawing dimension schemes I use are putting drawing dimensions either as ordinate off a single datum and/or in a hole table; while the in-model dimensions are often hole to hole, or patterns (which are essentially a type of hole-to-hole dimension). My design intent is expressed via GD&T feature control frames, not by how my dimensions are located. Most of my dimensions don't have tolerance info, due to placing that in feature control frames for most features.
The most common example of different model/drawing dimension schemes I use are putting drawing dimensions either as ordinate off a single datum and/or in a hole table; while the in-model dimensions are often hole to hole, or patterns (which are essentially a type of hole-to-hole dimension). My design intent is expressed via GD&T feature control frames, not by how my dimensions are located. Most of my dimensions don't have tolerance info, due to placing that in feature control frames for most features.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question