Drawing Quality 4

[drawoh]

This is a question for fabricators, inspectors and manufacturers. thread1103-265767 is drifting off topic, so I am starting this thread.

How good are the drawings you are being sent? Do they make sense as per drafting standards? Are you willing to promise to meet the dimensions and tolerances?

JHG

 

[KENAT]

...True geometry representation permits section lining of the entire view of a feature. ... See Fig. 45

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ewh]

Thanks!

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[fsincox]

Amen, I knew that was the more likely outcome as I said above.
Frank

 

[jerry1423]

Since CAD drawing quality has become terribly low.
I somewhat judge a company on their drawing (rightly or wrongly), the better looking drawings generally are the best done as far as accuracy and content.
I drew on the board for 10 years before going to CAD, and I still try my best to have the best drawings, and I get many complements from them.

 

[dgallup]

Anybody that's wants to go back to low contrast sepia's with smudges, erasures and coffee stains all over the place, views that were not redrawn when the dimensions changed and assembly drawings that were 5 component changes out of date is welcome to go back 30 years in my time machine. You have to supply the 1.21 gigawatts. The good old days were not that good, at least around here.

 

[ewh]

As I posted, quality drawings were created "...depending on the company cuture." Sepias were a shortcut method at best, and I still remember the scent of eradicating fluid. Modified sepias seldom looked good, and the quality would decline with each modification. On the otherhand, ink on mylar drawings usually held up well through many changes, but were a bit more delicate in execution.
The type of product manufactured and frequency of changes made a big difference, but good drawings were more prevalent then than now, at least in my experience. YMMV

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[11echo]

I believe it would be hard to "judge" that quality …or lack of it unless you've "been there"! The computer revolution has given us a lot of advantages, but with a number of growing pains too (as I pointed out)! The one we are discussing here now is one of the biggest. SO if everyone recognizes that there are "issues" with CAD generated drawings, how do you point a negative finger at the board generated drawings when it's held as a level of achievement ...coffee stains, smudges, & all!??

 

[fsincox]

I want to add one thing to the drawing quality discussion from my own experiance. When I was in the machine tool industry we adopted the standard around '87. We had outside trainers the whole bit. A lot of discussion here and other threads bemoans the demise of checkers. My experiace was a little different, the people most opposed to change were the entrenched checkers who prefered to keep things the "old way", they didn't like CAD and didn't like GD&T. This may also be a reason they were no longer viewed as value added.
Frank

 

[KENAT]

Funny, the checkers I've had the priveledge of working with are about the only people I've worked with that actually seemed to understand GD&T in any depth.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fsincox]

Kenat,
I realize now you have come from a later time. All the profile tolerances talked about here would have been laughed at when I first started. You have come to accept a whole new level of GD&T than when I started, it was mush more like some of the comments we get now, “what do we need to go to that for”. I see the same thing in resistance to the 2009 standard, for example, it's statement that +/- is basically only good for features of size. Make no mistake some checkers were my mentors in many other ways, no doubt. Change is a given, resistance to change did them in.
Frank

 

[KENAT]

fsincox, not sure exactly how far back you go but most of the checkers I'm talking about are now around retirement age and had been working GD&T dating back possibly to pre 1982. They came from defense/aerospace backgrounds though, as it seems do a lot (most?) of the people making most use of GD&T.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[drawoh]

KENAT,

Everybody seems to have their own idea of who should do design checking, and how. In the offices of Dominion Consolidated Widgets Incporated, the design checker may be a highly qualified professional that everybody respects and relies on, or he could be some goof that everybody wanted kept away from the drafting board or CAD station.

This sort of thing depens massively on who you are working for.

JHG

 

[KENAT]

Sure, but when I talk checkers on this sight I'm thinking of the list of qualifications we put together when I asked the question a couple years back.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fsincox]

Kenat,
I really do not believe the majority of old checkers knew GD&T. I would like to believe we would be much farther ahead if they had. I once refered to the people you are refering to as the best and the brightest of their time, someone took issue with that statement when I made it before. I would still maintain that the people you know were the best and brightest of their time. Unless you just mean they knew the words like: parallelism, perpendicularity, concentricity and symmetry. those checkers I knew, too. Parallelism was like a snake.
Frank

 

[KENAT]

No they were good, one of them occasionally gets on here and was the best of the bunch. For the most part they had a very deep understanding of the GD&T - much more so than me - while still having a reasonable grasp of the more practical side of things. They didn't get caught up in some of the minutia like some of the more 'expert' members here do, but it wasn't generally because they didn't understand it.

While a sample of 3 folks isn't that large, they were very good.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ewh]

Yes, it does depend on the company culture. Most of the checkers I have worked with (from the early 80's on) had a strong working knowledge of GD&T; if you disagreed with their interpretation of the standards but could not back it up, their opinion stood. If you could back up your position with the relevant standards, they would aquiesce. The majority of the time, they were correct. The time spent in attempting to prove them wrong was valuable in the lessons learned.
I do not and cannot claim that a majority of checkers back then knew the standards very well, but I can claim that most of the ones I worked with did, and what they did not know they were willing to learn as it was presented to them.
Again, YMMV.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[fsincox]

Realise, I was only stating my perspective, too. I am asking how others perceive things. That is really why I am here, to continue to learn and change. How do you explain the whole, “we need certification,” if you are correct and there were so many good people out there, It just doesn’t pass my fishy smell test.
Frank

 

[KENAT]

What do you mean by "we need certification"?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fsincox]

Sorry, GD&T certification. I have always realized some people may work in more progressive environment. I am maintaining that all the discussion here and in the Yahoo group about the poor state of GD&T application, coupled with the fact there was a call for "certification" of "experts" leads one to suspect you were fortunate. On the other hand it could have been sales propaganda, I suppose, by those selling the standard. But, I do not perceive it that way, you?
Kenat,
Are you English originally; You mentioned you worked there when we first talked, but now, after reading back it appears different.
Frank

 

[KENAT]

English originally, now a yankee doodle dandy, or maybe not as I live in CA but a US citizen anyway.

Regarding certification, I looked into this when I got landed the checking role, I even got the study guide.

However, having looked at it a little (not enough) and talked to some others, I have the perception that they perhaps set the bar too high for the initial level of certification. The amount of time & effort I'd have to spend to get it didn't seem commensurate with the benefits. I haven't seen many job adds asking for GD&T certification, just for experience with ASME Y14.5 etc.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​