Hey, I’m not even sure if this is the right subreddit, but I’ve seen a few technical drawings here, so I thought this might be the best place to ask. Anyway, I’m doing a technical drawing course and I’ve got to draw the left-front and top views of this diagram, but I really don’t understand a thing. I can’t seem to visualise the part in my head, I don’t understand certain symbols (for example: the ‘e’ on the left next to the diameter) and the teacher isn’t really helping. Could anyone give me some advice? Thanks a lot (I’ve used a translator to improve my English, so perhaps the message comes across a bit dry – I’m sorry about that).
Can we all agree that if a professor gives out garbage like this that we help as much as we can? (And flog the professor if we ever see them) I'm not a big fan of helping with homework but this is just a horrible drawing to give to someone and tell them to draw the ortho views.
Edit: btw, the F-> designates the Front view just in-case your professor never explained that.
I agree. I had some head scratchers in school, but nothing so unreadable as this. I wonder if the teacher actually doesn't understand or just didn't look at the exercise.
My best advice to OP without being able to actually help at the moment is to start with planes at the outer extents of the part and try to sketch the profile of each view. Dissecting it from each angle will help you wrap your head around it
I wonder if the teacher gives out terrible drawings like this as a "challenge," which defeats the purpose of learning.
For the same reason, I hate those exercises where it looks under-dimensioned, but it's a matter of figuring out the trick like some tangencies or concentricities.
But... that's not what these "trick" drawings from CSWA and CSWP exams are trying to teach, so I don't get your point. If you do enough of those practice models, you get pretty good at figuring out what trick they're using in that problem.
In the real world, if something is poorly dimensioned, it's because someone made a bad drawing. Two different skill sets and situations.
I think these types of assignments are just fine for the most part.
The quality can definitely vary a bit, I believe they're intentionally supposed to be very difficult to discern the information from, and I believe they're intentionally bad meaning that they're put together in the most uninformative way with not enough views, and too much stuff packed into one spot.
Much of the time, you'll see the post accompanied by a model that is slightly off but close, so I think the goal is to get the user to experiment a bit and I think this type of experience is very important to learning how to model things efficiently and correctly. I've definitely learned a lot over the years by having to redo something that I previously did.
There's also no situation where OP strolls into class and is like "I don't know what to do!" and then fails.
This one is a bit hard to parse but if you take a moment to focus on the non-hidden lines it’s not too difficult to figure out the views.
These things aren’t really drawings, they are the best equivalent to giving a student a part to measure that can be placed in a textbook. If the textbook showed proper drawings and asked the student to make views based on that, it’s not much of an exercise.
I don't think I ever got a decent drawing the whole time I was in school. Often, dimensions were omitted and you had to extrapolate what it was supposed to look like from some of the other not well-defined information.
The drawings they gave me for my final project were blatantly wrong. I couldn't even fit the parts together and had to re-design most of the assembly.
I know the bad instructions are intentional, to train you to follow unclear design criteria. But, I'm not sure it's the best method to throw at you while you're also trying to learn the mechanics of the software.
It's like they are trying to teach you ESP at the same time you're learning to run CAD.
The hand drawn fillets are quite the touch. Honestly though, without knowing the grading structure I can’t say… but I feel like this is a completely fair learning exercise
Literally what my professor has just given us. And we’re all completely new to this shit. Even worse he’s like just watch the recorded videos and follow along….like no dude, show me why it’s done that why, explain to me the differences in relations etc like wth!
? This stuff is purposely made to ve vomit inducing to make the person stop and think instead of just typing out numbers.....
It's made to train people to visualize a tridimensional object, great stuff for people who need to learn but it's repulsive to anyone who has ever made a drawing.
You can't even read half of the numbers because of the font (handwritten) and how everything is overlaid on top of each other. It's one thing to use isoviews and dimensions to get someone to think in orthogonal views but this is borderline unreadable.
I'll see if I can find some of my old books that did the same thing but are actually readable
No need to look for old books, we've all used the same 10 parts that were hand drawn 50 years ago, faxed 9992 times and fotocopied 120542 times.
Some were initialy clean and readable, over the decade they became a clusterfuck and the people who learned on tjose now makes clusterfuck as the start.
The shittier it is, the better it works for complete beginners and at the same time the worse they are for people who are used to make drawings.
I’ve made models from hundreds of these lousy things as practice and learning exercises over the years. And the phantom/hidden lines being so tight make it hard to tell sometimes what’s hidden and what’s visible.
My best advice for learning how to visualize the part is this: Bring it into paint or print a copy and use different colors to highlight different faces and radii. That will help your brain to better visualize it in 3 dimensions. Once you have that, you can use those colors to highlight the dimensions that correspond to those features and cross them off as you build your model in SW to ensure you’re catching all the features
I think the 'e' they are referring to is just the diameter symbol (i.e. circle with a line through it). I think it just looks like an 'e' because the print quality is so bad.
Edit: I agree with your orthos though. Even if their would logically put another countersunk hole int he back corner, its not indicated in the isometric so you wouldn't be marked down for that.
It has to mean depth, because how else would you know how much depth that hole requires? Also the "8 trous" is telling you that there is 8 holes with that diameter, so if you use a little bit of imagination I think you can position them right.
we just had a final assembly of an arbor press we had to model from a one page smashed up drawing of all 12 parts drawn in this style. dimensioned hidden lines, dimensions that were just wrong (a .5 segments next to another .5 segment that was 3 times longer lol) missing views etc.
thankfully solidworks does the drawing views by itself lol never have to do them in autocad again
I don't understand, why they have to make an exercises, which requires a CSI-level data extraction exercise at top of the learning the actual subject...
This vomit of a drawing is missing some of the necessary dimensions and it will be just guessing what might be hiding behind the boss with large hole... I would just draw a dickbutt or something otherwise funky there.
So many hidden lines, but they couldn't draw the contour of the damn base???
Also, idk if I'm wrong, but after 5 minutes, I couldn't find a way to determine the inclination of the diagonal extrude at the left, nor the distance between the base of said extrude and the corner of the whole piece.
At first seems like a fun challenge. Now is just garbage
Best I can do with the little info we have. I made some assumptions as the two extra holes you can see at the top view, that was because of the "8 trous Ø26 e=1" note so I imagine that means 8 holes of 1mm depth. The "60" measure wasn't helping so I thought it meant the distance between the two holes that were symmetrical from the middle of the piece.
I agree that drawing is absolutely ATROCIOUS! Your drawing is way clearer to read and close to what I was visualizing. Definitely know that I need to practice my basic SolidWorks skills, but I definitely feel bad for OP and their classmates for such a poorly drawn assignment.
Hi i saw so french on the page. If you are not french. Tell me i'll write this in english
Le e a côté du diamètre me fais penser à l'épaisseur du lamage mais c'est une facon horrible et pas clair de le côté.
Si tu as d'autre question sur ce plan ou sur d'autre plan plus tard hésite pas à venir en mp je t'aiderai quand j'aurai du temps.
Si tu veux je peux dessiner la pièce sur solidworks demain midi et t'envoyer une vue isométrique histoire que tu visualises.
Mais ce que tu as la c'est pas vraiment un plan que j'aimerai transmettre à un fournisseur car bcp trop peu clair je pense que ça peut être utilisé en production interne et encore normalement.
Ensuite dernier truc, attention aux convention. En France et Europe ( de memoire) nos vus ne sont pas projettées de la même manière qu'aux US. Donc fait gaffe si tu as des conseils concernant la vue a faire sur un sub anglophone
Hell, if you do end up making a solid of it can you upload a picture here? I'm going crosseyed trying to make sense of it. I can see a bore, and some kind of clamping feature?, but all that up front is throwing me off
hello, merci pour ta réponse, je pense en effet quel e signifie l'epaisseur à cet endroit mais c'est vrai que c'est pas super clair. Merci pour l'aide proposée si j'ai des questions je reviendrai vers toi, concernant solidworks, j'ai déjà reçu quelques images dans les commentaires donc si t'es occupé, te libère pas pour ça mais tu peux le faire si tu veux. Merci aussi pour les infos concernant l'info sur le plan car le prof avait été assez vague sur ce coté là aussi "-.- . Et le prof est très strict au niveau des conventions donc j'avais bien fait gaffe à respecter ça ! Encore merci
Im not on pc rn. Imagine a plate - then sideway tube extrude down to the plate - a rectangle extrude from tube that parallel to the plate - a slit between that rectangle - a rib from that rec to the plate - and some holes
This is absolutely atrocious. I dont know how anyone can think this is passable drawing. Anyways, my model doesn't want to cooperate with those numbers .D
Nope, this is some straight-up 1910s stuff. Seriously. There are a bunch of free public domain texts on the Internet Archive that have drawings like these.
112
u/NightF0x0012 CSWP 1d ago
Can we all agree that if a professor gives out garbage like this that we help as much as we can? (And flog the professor if we ever see them) I'm not a big fan of helping with homework but this is just a horrible drawing to give to someone and tell them to draw the ortho views.
Edit: btw, the F-> designates the Front view just in-case your professor never explained that.