yang686526

drawing scale
how are companys handling drawing scale with cad. i get arguements for and against the standard drawing scales.
check out our whitepaper library.
if you are using drawings, then scales still apply. if you have a problem with that, you can always have it noted on the drawing that the scale is "none".
if you feel standard drawing scales are not necessary, then it follows that standard format sizes are not necessary either, or standard test sizes, etc. heck, who needs standards anyway!
this is just my personal opinion. i like nice comfortable numbers like half scale and 2x scale, nothing like 3/8 and things like that. for reducing the scale, the largest paper i use is d size (i absolutely hate e size drawings). i will use multiple sheets instead of reducing the scale further to put more views on sheet. enough of my rambling; i probably didn't answer your question.
we're treating it the same way as you would have for a manually prepared drawing.
we have the general drawing scale in the title block and then any views of another scale will be labeled such.
we also encourage the use of larger sheet sizes. to me at least i'd rather have a large single sheet drawing then a small multi sheet drawing.
some of the staff here though have prepared b size drawings with 10 or more pages!
i assume it's in a standard somewhere what scales to use on drawings but am not sure which one off the top of my head.
if the 2d drawing is your master and you're not invoking asme y14.41 then i'd suggest you should still be treating it as you would have a manual drawing.
inch dimensioned drawings should use 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, etc for the view scales.
metric drawings should use 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, etc for drawing views.
"wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
ben loosli
sr is technologist
l-3 communications
ben is correct. but, i have always been taught that inch is shown 1/1, 1/2, etc., metric is 1:1, 1:2, etc.
chris
systems analyst, i.s.
solidworks 06 4.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
i have three triangular engineering scales on my desk. i plot drawings out to scale.
my "engineer" scale is in inches, and does the scales 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 and 1:6. i use those scales on inch drawings whenever possible.
my "architect" scale is in 1"=1', 1/2"=1', etc. i have done drawings to these scales, but not frequently.
my "metric" scale does 1:100, 1:125, 1:75, 1:20, 1:25 and 1:50. i use these scales on my metric drawings. i would really appreciate a metric scale equivalent to my inch engineer scale described above. then i could prepare scale drawings in whatever units i damn well please, and scale the drawing with whatever scale i damn well please.
at home i have another metric scale that does 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, 1:50. this will be useful if i ever forget how to multiply by ten.
the nature of what i do allows me to make drawings 1:1 scale most of the time, and i strongly prefer this scale. if the scale is not 1:1, i start wondering how the end-user, possibly me, will take advantage of the drawing scale.
jhg
drbauer,
perhaps we are misinterpreting your question.
one benefit of parametric 3d mechanical cad is that packages like solidworks intelligently interpret dimension units. i have bad memories of this in 2d autocad.
in 2d autocad, you should decide what your units are and draw everything at 1:1 scale. if your drawing is to be at 1:2 scale, you apply your title block at 2:1 scale, and plot at half size.
a lot of people use title blocks at 1:1 scale, and make their drawing at the intended plotting scale. you have to reprogram the dimenion variables. if your scale is 1:1.25 and your feature is 25.5mm, you must draw it in at 20.4mm. this is a waste of time, and a reliable way to make mistakes.
all modeling should be at 1:1 scale. the scale should be a function of the drawing or of your plot process.
jhg
on the computer you have infinite space.....(66 sq. mi.) draw it 1:1 everything from there can be referenced to scale on the sheet. this way it is easier for engineers who still like to draw on plans.
regards,
namdac