Is this note make sense to you? 3

[hengone]

PartNotex | UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED WITHIN THE CATIA DATASET, ALL PARTS ARE LOCATED TO A SURFACE PROFILE TOLERANCE OF .0600 RELATIVE TO PRIMARY DATUM A, SECONDARY DATUM B , AND TERTIARY DATUM C. EXCEPTION FOR DA LOCATED DETAIL PARTS, THE DETAIL PARTS TAKES PRECEDENCE FOR PROFILE TOLERANCE. | URL

 

[fcsuper]

It's a feature control frame without the frame, invoking model based definition.

| Profile | .0600 | A | B | C |
ALL OVER

Using the symbol instead of the text would be recommended, in my opinion. Also, this spec assumes A, B and C datums are always specific.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[CheckerHater]

Most likely, the note applies to the “outer skin” of the entire vehicle: car, ship, or, in your case, probably an aircraft.
Exception given to “parts” probably mean that your nuts and bolts are allowed to have their own datums, not related to “major’ A, B, and C.
There should be document somewhere (paper or electronic) showing where the datums actually are.
Just a thought. If it deviates from conventional standard, it should be explained somewhere.

 

[fsincox]

Yes, except the "DA" part. I am not sure what that is all about.
This type of statement is made in the standard as an option.
Frank

 

[ctopher]

I prefer the symbology. Notes like this could be translated wrong, or not read at all.

Chris
SolidWorks 11
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[fsincox]

I actually think it is good to have a textural way of expressing these requirements. Not all programs have the symbols to use. Like this board for example!
Frank

 

[btrueblood]

"I actually think it is good to have a textural way of expressing these requirements."

Like a feature control frame in Braille?

 

[Belanger]

Ha ha btrueblood! Funny how one extra letter can change the entire meaning of a word!

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

http://www.gdtseminars.com

 

[btrueblood]

FWIW, I do agree with Frank. I've had trouble with drawings exported overseas, and the engineers there being unfamiliar with the GDT symbology. For those prints, I have had to add a text-based definition of the requirements. It's a pain to do, but a good learning experience in how to communicate with people who have not studied the standard, and get them to understand what you want. That can happen in a small shop down the street just as often as it can happen in one on the other side of the planet.

 

[fsincox]

I am not saying that the dedicated symbols are not better, that is a fundamental heart of the whole concept, really.
Frank

 

[ewh]

I agree with fsincox; in a perfect world, symbology is the method to use. Unfortunately not all CAD systems allow for this in the body of a general note, and actually stating the requirements is a good solution to overcome this. It should in no way conflict with the meaning of the corresponding symbols.
That said, such "standard" notes need to be used with care to ensure that the meaning is applicable to the part being defined.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[CheckerHater]

ISO provides “text equivalents” of GD&T symbols, which makes sense. You cannot expect every font in the world to include GD&T symbology, so sooner or later your text document will become corrupt.
The abbreviations are as follows:
Line profile PFL
Straightness STR
Roundness RON
Surface profile PFS
Flatness FLT
Cylindricity CYL
Angularity ANG
Parallelism PAR
Perpendicularity PER
Position POS
Coaxiality CAX
Symmetry SYM
Circular run-out CRO
Total run-out TRO
I see no reason why we couldn’t start using them for consistency’s sake.

 

[MechNorth]

I would be concerned with a supplier's claim to be GD&T capable if they don't understand the symbology. If someone understands what surface profile means, then they almost certainly have seen the symbol. As we saw in one of the preceding posts, a minor typo changes everything, so textual definitions are a high-risk idea.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services

http://www.profileservices.ca

TecEase, Inc.

http://www.tec-ease.com

 

[CheckerHater]

I have impression that we are discussing “alternative” or “equivalent” ways to replace symbology when there is no other choice, not the ways to abolish symbology altogether.
Speaking of which, things that I see everyday make me think that majority of people don’t understand symbology and have to be presented with the text…

 

[KENAT]

There are work arounds to get symbols in notes if need be - that's how I've done all over surface profile notes in our CAD system.

Essentially I put a bunch of spaces in the note and then drop a separate surf profile box in the space.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[tz101]

Something to consider:

The real advantage to drawing symbology is that it is language-independent. The more you can express tolerances and design intent with symbols, the less chance of some Spanish or German QA misinterpreting the meaning. If your drawing is guaranteed to go to an English language manufacturing environment, and your organization is fine with wordy notes, then fine. Otherwise, using tolerance frames and symbology is very beneficial to all parties involved, and hopefully leads to far fewer mistakes.

 

[dgallup]

There is a free ware true type font that will let you create pretty much every ASME drawing symbol. Do a search for Y14.5M-2009.ttf

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[CheckerHater]

If your drawing is guaranteed to go to an English language manufacturing environment...

You must be new to this planet.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[fsincox]

dgallup,
Nice post on the font, Thanks