Chamfer dimension tolerance

[RyanRun]

How do apply an angle tolerance to my chamfer dimension?

I would like my callout to look like this: .040 x 45°±5°

Thank you

 

[tkchiu]

Hi RyanRun,

To my understanding, tolerance is applied only to the FIRST/MAJOR dimension value of the chamfer dimension. Just check up the R16 online documentation and it still says the same. Enhancement Request, I suppose !!

Therefore, if the format is Length X Angle, we then can have only length type tolerance applied to Length value; equally, if the format is Angle X Length, we then can have only angular type tolerance applied to the Angle.

And so in your case, it may end up something like
45°±5° x .040
which is perhaps something not very preferrable.

Cheers. Kennis.

 

[catiajim]

You could also try using "Text After", but I suspect it will put it in the wrong place (it did the last time I checked).

You are probably stuck having to place a separate piece of text next to your dimension and lining it up. That, or just use a Text Callout rather than a dimension >:-<

 

[RyanRun]

Thank you for the information. My results are just what you mention. It appears that Catia needs to do much improvement in their drawing package.

 

[solid7]

Yes, Catia V5 drafting is less than desireable, to be sure. But I think the bulk of resources is geared, not at improving the drafting package - but rather, at getting away from it, altogether.

I don't expect to see any major developments with the Drafting workbench from here out. (just my opinion)





**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[Runz]

I've been hearing about the elimination of 2D drawings for many years, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Too many people desire a 2D drawing, especially in the aerospace industry.

If Dassault is thinking about not investing resources in their drawing package, it will be a mistake on their part.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[solid7]

The only people in the aerospace industry who "need" to have paper drawings, are the mom and pop supplier shops who refuse to jump on board. Many of the suppliers who "need" 2D drawings don't even have a CAD system. (don't ask me to explain it - I haven't got a clue)

Aerospace, from what I can see, is the clear leader (pioneers, actually) in the effort to go to 3D only.

I actually applaud Boeing in their efforts to do 3D only. Please understand - nobody is going to retroactively do away with 2D. But for new programs, Boeing is doing a very nice job of implementing 3D only in certain programs.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[Runz]

We are a supplier to most General Aviation OEM's, in addition to many of the business jet OEM's, Military, etc. and they all require and want 2D drawings.

Sure, Boeing may want to go paperless, but we are a long way from it. In the mean time, drawings are a very important part of the design process.

I am not saying that I would not like to see paperless design, but I am a realist.

 

[solid7]

I understand what you're saying - but I stand by the point - eventually, things WILL go paperless, and that has to start SOMEWHERE. To that end, Boeing and Dassault, as PARTNERS, are pioneering the effor to do 3D only, and for that I congratulate them. Too many people who desire paper, are, simply, "stuck in a rut."

Once it's been done successfully, and someone publishes a technocratic article about it, it won't be long before everyone else is on board.

So that brings me back to the other point - In my *opinion*, seeing what is being done with Dassault, and several of its prominent business partners, I DO NOT BELIEVE that you will see any major developments in the drafting package.

That's all that I'm trying to say. I was simply addresing the ongoing criticism of the (admittedly) bad drafting package in V5.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[Runz]

Thanks for your comments. I do agree with you and agree that it needs to start somewhere.

Paperless...that sure has a nice ring to it. I know my hands/wrists sure would like it!

 

[jackk]

"Paperless" and "No drawings" are two different things.