Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Section view into projected view 2
- Thread starter vensan123
- Start date
-
2
- #2
I think you can, at least with NX4. It is currently the only way that I know to get the view fold line. The only problem that I see with it is that you can't then take another projected view from that "section" view.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
- Thread starter
- #3
I think that the lack of ability to take a projected view from a "section" view of this type is a matter of the operation not being fully updated, or another projected view option which will give you the fold line not being available.
It makes sense to me, because I've been taught that it is poor drawing practice to take a view (other than a detail view) from a section view, so using "section" as a work around is really a kluge to get what you need.
I hope that this is one of the items that will be updated in the near future. Whatta you think, John?
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
It makes sense to me, because I've been taught that it is poor drawing practice to take a view (other than a detail view) from a section view, so using "section" as a work around is really a kluge to get what you need.
I hope that this is one of the items that will be updated in the near future. Whatta you think, John?
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
- Thread starter
- #5
Thanks again ewh.
Just would like to know whether this is the best drafting practice. Please see attached image.
If this is not acceptable best practice, I would create Projected View instead of this section view. But for “projected view”, "view label" and "view Arrow" need to be added manually, if required.
Just would like to know whether this is the best drafting practice. Please see attached image.
If this is not acceptable best practice, I would create Projected View instead of this section view. But for “projected view”, "view label" and "view Arrow" need to be added manually, if required.
To answer this question I think that it either works or it doesn't and that it can always be easily tested. Since it works in some versions the expectation is pretty much always that later versions will maintain that data, so it would probably continue to do so.
With very little effort I was able to establish that this method does work in NX-4. Although I wonder why you would want to do it?
As to whether it is best practice it is not the logical expression of what a section is, so I'd have to say that it doesn't fall within the subset of things that I would call best practice. That is to say that while no drafting manuals would ever talk of sections that don't go through anything, you have to read the term best practice to mean the narrow definition of how to do something properly and exclude this on that basis. Whether it will work ever time now and into the future I don't speak for PLMS, but if it works once then it is a safe bet that it will continue to do so since it is not in the nature of software programs to make value judgments according to the narrower definition of whatever best practice may mean to you.
Best Regards
Hudson
With very little effort I was able to establish that this method does work in NX-4. Although I wonder why you would want to do it?
As to whether it is best practice it is not the logical expression of what a section is, so I'd have to say that it doesn't fall within the subset of things that I would call best practice. That is to say that while no drafting manuals would ever talk of sections that don't go through anything, you have to read the term best practice to mean the narrow definition of how to do something properly and exclude this on that basis. Whether it will work ever time now and into the future I don't speak for PLMS, but if it works once then it is a safe bet that it will continue to do so since it is not in the nature of software programs to make value judgments according to the narrower definition of whatever best practice may mean to you.
Best Regards
Hudson
It may not be "best practice" in the CAD sense, but up to now it is the only way to achieve an associate hinge line and view identifier, which are often required for oblique view projections.
From a strictly drafting standpoint, it is perfectly acceptable, as the person reading the drawing doesn't know or care if a projected view hinge line is actually a section line. They are really the same thing - a definition from where the projected view is folded, be it through the part or outside of the part.
The REAL issue here is that NX does not yet support a common, needed drafting feature - an associative projected view line that does not have the same properties as a section line (where another view or section can not be taken from from a parent section view). Board drawings of odd shapes are usually littered with sections and projections taken from such views, and it is perfectly allowable and actually required for a concise drawing.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
From a strictly drafting standpoint, it is perfectly acceptable, as the person reading the drawing doesn't know or care if a projected view hinge line is actually a section line. They are really the same thing - a definition from where the projected view is folded, be it through the part or outside of the part.
The REAL issue here is that NX does not yet support a common, needed drafting feature - an associative projected view line that does not have the same properties as a section line (where another view or section can not be taken from from a parent section view). Board drawings of odd shapes are usually littered with sections and projections taken from such views, and it is perfectly allowable and actually required for a concise drawing.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
- Thread starter
- #8
If you're looking to produce true radial sections then I agree that there doesn't seem to be a convenient way to do so. The best way I know of is the throw a view off a hinge line, which I'm usually happy enough to create as a curve, and then section that view. The problem there becomes what to do with the view that you cast to section through given that you don't really want to see it on the drawing.
The truth I guess is that the need for these things in increasingly lessened by manufacturing processes that don't need to rely on drafting techniques to describe the geometry. But when you need it you really need it and it would be a help if radial sections were better catered for.
Cheers
Hudson
The truth I guess is that the need for these things in increasingly lessened by manufacturing processes that don't need to rely on drafting techniques to describe the geometry. But when you need it you really need it and it would be a help if radial sections were better catered for.
Cheers
Hudson
Hudson,
I don't think vensan123 has a problem with true section views, be it a normal projection or radial. The issue is the ability to define the orientation of auxiliary views (used to show true shape and relationship of features that are not parallel to any of the principal planes of projection). Per ASME Y14.3M-1994, these views are to be aligned and may be connected to each other with centerlines or projection lines. No problem with NX here. The problem appears when, due to space or complexity, the auxiliary view cannot be placed in alignment with the parent view, but must be labeled and located elsewhere on the drawing. To do this correctly, a hinge line must be defined. Auxiliary views may be taked from other auxiliary views ad infinitum. Thus the situation we have with NX not supporting a necessary drafting feature.
I agree that with the advent of MBD (ASME Y14.41-2003) that this problem may be going the way of the drawing board, but I believe that the realisation of this won't fully happen for quite some time. In the meantime, many of us still have to create drawings that fully define our parts, and having the proper tools make our jobs that much easier.
![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
I don't think vensan123 has a problem with true section views, be it a normal projection or radial. The issue is the ability to define the orientation of auxiliary views (used to show true shape and relationship of features that are not parallel to any of the principal planes of projection). Per ASME Y14.3M-1994, these views are to be aligned and may be connected to each other with centerlines or projection lines. No problem with NX here. The problem appears when, due to space or complexity, the auxiliary view cannot be placed in alignment with the parent view, but must be labeled and located elsewhere on the drawing. To do this correctly, a hinge line must be defined. Auxiliary views may be taked from other auxiliary views ad infinitum. Thus the situation we have with NX not supporting a necessary drafting feature.
I agree that with the advent of MBD (ASME Y14.41-2003) that this problem may be going the way of the drawing board, but I believe that the realisation of this won't fully happen for quite some time. In the meantime, many of us still have to create drawings that fully define our parts, and having the proper tools make our jobs that much easier.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
ewh,
I know what you mean although I admit to having referred to the drafting standards less thoroughly. As I said I create a curve for the hinge line where needed. It would bother some people if that curve were not associative and I can agree with that so I'd create something in modeling on a different layer. It would also bother some people to have to use layers, so I didn't mention that earlier. When forced to chose between ways to support non standard behavior go for whatever is most easily labeled for the next guy to figure it out I guess.
To create a radial section properly in many cases you have to throw off an auxiliary view and section that. In connection with this topic that requirement rounds out a better understanding of what is unsupported in support of your earlier remarks. To that extent we are on about that same thing.
Best regards
Hudson
I know what you mean although I admit to having referred to the drafting standards less thoroughly. As I said I create a curve for the hinge line where needed. It would bother some people if that curve were not associative and I can agree with that so I'd create something in modeling on a different layer. It would also bother some people to have to use layers, so I didn't mention that earlier. When forced to chose between ways to support non standard behavior go for whatever is most easily labeled for the next guy to figure it out I guess.
To create a radial section properly in many cases you have to throw off an auxiliary view and section that. In connection with this topic that requirement rounds out a better understanding of what is unsupported in support of your earlier remarks. To that extent we are on about that same thing.
Best regards
Hudson
- Status
