Category: Drawing

Trying to move an annotation arrow but drawing view moves instead?

Lock View Position - Shortcut menu

Have you ever tried to move an arrow of an annotation note, but instead the drawing view itself moved?   To fix the mistake, you are forced to undo and retry again.  The problem can pop up fairly frequently when trying to move balloons on an assembly drawing.  If a balloon is pointing to a vertex of the model, it is very difficult to select the arrow instead of the vertex point.  This can be very annoying.

So, how does one gain control over these wily drawing views?  SolidWorks allows users to lock the view’s position on the drawing.  Locking the view will prevent it from accidentally shifting when trying to move the annotation arrow.  To lock a view’s position, RMB click on that view.  This will open the Shortcut Menu.  Select Lock View Position.  This setting will lock the view’s position.  Of course, you can undo this by returning to the Shortcut Menu and selecting Unlock View Position.

.

————–

Update for SOLIDWORKS 2014: You no longer have to lock view focus or filter selection.  In SOLIDWORKS 2014, you can now simply select the balloon first, then select the tip of its arrow.  This will allow you to move the arrow (reattach it somewhere else) without any workarounds.

DraftSight for Linux is now in beta!

It took a little longer than originally planned, but DraftSight for Linux is now in beta release for the general public!  Of course, DraftSight is a no-cost 2D CAD product by Dassault Systemes for CAD professionals, students and educators (download at DraftSight.com) that allows them to create, edit and view DWG files.

The Linux version of DraftSight was openly talked about by Dassault Systemes as early as August 2010.  The original statements at that time suggested that a beta release would be happening in the Fall of that year.  That didn’t happen, but the Linux version is finally available.  This is a major move that allows Dassault Systemes to position itself very well in the 2D CAD industry with its beta release of a MAC version, and its recent general release of the Windows version.  For additional information about DraftSight, please see my previous article.  There’s also more Linux specific information now available in this newer article.

Here are some images of DraftSight for Linux (click on image to enlarge):

 

 

Twitter chatter on Monday’s article about using ASME

The article from last Monday entitled To what extent should a company comply with ASME standards on their drawings? generated a fair amount of Twitter chatter.  Here’s my rather vane attempt to organize these interesting discussions to share.

@fcsuper: To what extent should a company comply with ASME standards on their drawings? http://goo.gl/fb/7jkqF #solidworks

@SeanDotson: @fcsuper Well said. We “tweak” it to fit our needs as well. [link]

@DevonSowell:  @fcsuper comply with ASME? 100% but none do, 13 yrs 44 clients, haven’t see any comply or come close, Mil contractors the closest [link]

@DevonSowell: @fcsuper same client ” I want the minimum amount of Engineering to make and ship our products” [link]

@Edsonius: @DevonSowell @fcsuper some clients don’t want change so compliance from what they’re used to doing means spending $ to be current=#ignorance [link]

@fcsuper: @SeanDotson I cover that tweaking briefly in my #sww11 presentation too. Opened some eyes, I think. [link]

@fcsuper: @DevonSowell those clients may or may not pay more in the long run. It really is about finding min necessary for some companies. [link]

@solidmuse: @DevonSowell @fcsuper If we had to comply with ASME 100% we would be out of business. It is that simple for many companies. [link]

@fcsuper: @Edsonius @DevonSowell i am seeing a move towards compliance, but many smaller companies (who mite benefit most) don’t understand value [link]

@JeffSweeney: @fcsuper It is harder for them to get and see the ROI [link]

@fcsuper: @solidmuse @DevonSowell what areas of #amse do u find burdensome. [link]

@fcsuper: @JeffSweeney yup…I know that from experience. [link]

@Edsonius: @fcsuper @DevonSowell value comes with the cost of being bit on the buttocks (for u @SteveOstrovsky)  ‘cuz of non-compliance – #changeishard [link]

@DevonSowell: @solidmuse @fcsuper If we had to comply with ASME 100%… I agree Anna, so do my customers [link]

@DevonSowell: @fcsuper @solidmuse what areas of #amse do u find burdensome, me none. My clients don’t see the value of compliance, and I see their point [link]

@SteveOstrovsky: @Edsonius @fcsuper @DevonSowell Here here. We don’t need any non-compliant buttocks walking around. [link]

@fcsuper: @DevonSowell @solidmuse I am curious what u thought cuz I know #solidworks is not 100% compliant w/ #ASME [link]

@DevonSowell: @fcsuper @solidmuse #solidworks is not 100% compliant w/ #ASME it should offer that, don’t you think? [link]

@fcsuper: @DevonSowell u’d think that should be something they’d want. [link]

ADDA’s Annual Technical & Educational Conference

The American Design Drafting Association (ADDA) is hosting its 52nd Annual Technical & Educational Conference in Kansas City, MO on April 12-15, 2011.  ADDA is heavily focused on the professions of drafting, design, and graphics.  ADDA has a certification program for drafters (mechanical and architectural), civil design drafters, design technicians, and digital designers (which include imaging and editing).  Not everyone has heard of ADDA, and that may be intentional.  Olen Parker, Executive Director, states,

It [ADDA] is small, yet sets the stage for many changes within the profession.  We don’t make noise, we don’t promote ourselves, we are the best kept secret in the profession.  ADDA is very involved in the standards and regulations related to our industry.

Best kept secret?  Well, maybe not anymore. 🙂  Parker also mentioned that ADDA made final reviews to ASME Y14.5-2009, and has members that are involved in a number of national committees and organizations.

The conference

This year’s Annual Technical & Educational Conference will have sessions that cover ASME and GD&T fundamentals, CAD and drawing standards, building codes, graphics, etc.  In particular, they will have sessions for CAD and graphic art applications such as PhotoShop, SolidWorks, Pro/E, AutoCAD, Revit, Sketch-Up, Illustrator, and several others.  Other sessions of note will discuss sustainability, BIM, and even workplace ethics. 

I’m also presenting a talk on establishing company CAD procedures at this year’s conference.  Though this presentation will be similar to my breakout session at SolidWorks World 2011, it will be more applicable to the broader audience at the Annual Technical & Educational Conference.

I will write about many aspects of this conference on SolidWorks Legion, including special attention to the quality and depth of several presentations.  I also hope to have a least a couple of interviews.  I also plan to post tweets on hashtag #atec11 during the event.

This will be my first year attending ADDA’s Annual Technical & Educational Conference, though I’ve been looking for an opportunity for several years.  Please note that ADDA is non-profit.  Although ADDA is giving me full conference access (including some meals) at no cost, I am sorta earning my keep by being one of the presenters.  I am personally paying for all other costs associated with my attendance, including airfare and hotel.

If you are interested in the ADDA, their certification process, or the Annual Technical & Educational Conference, please visit their website for further details.

To what extent should a company comply with ASME standards on their drawings?

ASME cutSome time ago, a visitor to SolidWorks Legion asked something similar to this:  Now that we decided to use them, to what extent should my company comply with the ASME standards on our drawings versus our own internal rules?

That is a complex and difficult question.  Purist will say, “Follow the standard exactly! Otherwise, why have a standard at all?”  Internal traditionalists will say, “We already have a way that works for us.  Why change what works?”

The answer, in my opinion, is in the middle.  ASME Y14.100-2004 paragraph 1.1 states that the ASME standard establishes essential requirements for the creation and revision of drawings and BOMs.  However, paragraph 1.2 then allows for “tailoring” of the standard to exclude unnecessary requirements.  Though this is not an explicit statement that allows outright customization, it does provide a crack in the door that may be used to justify such customization of the standard.  It is important to note that the ASME standard does not take the place of internal standards; it forms their foundation.  The ASME standard still leaves options open for individual companies to define for themselves.

In a company’s internal drafting standard, I recommend including the statement, “Exclude from practice any portions of any standards (e.g., ASME Y14.100) that differ from instructions within this document.”  This formalizes the effort to employ exceptions to the ASME standard.  However, this must be used with caution.

One area that is a good case for exceptions is in how a company might handle BOMs within the context of a PLM.  In such cases, it is often considered bad practice to list BOMs in two places (on the drawing and within the PLM).  It may be advantageous to store and control the BOM within the PLM, rather than on the drawing.  ASME does not address this.  However, as long as the PLM displays the BOM in a manner consistent with the intent of ASME, I don’t personally see any issue with relying solely on that PLM for BOMs.  The internal drafting standard should address such exceptions to ASME.

An area that is bad for exceptions is in the non-standard use of established symbols or abbreviations.  This is because the symbols and abbreviations are already defined by the ASME standards.  For example, if a company allows GD&T symbols to be used in a way that is not defined by ASME Y14.5-2009, a manufacturing vendor will not know how to properly interpret the custom use of the symbology.  ASME does not allow ambiguity on drawings.  However, if a company wishes to continue the use of a few of its own custom symbols and abbreviations, these need to be fully defined on each drawing or in an internal document that is referenced by the drawing.

In my opinion, this is the bottom line: leverage the ASME standards to save time and work (both in the creation and interpretation of drawings).  Try to adhere to ASME as much as possible.  Allow deviations that are necessary, but clearly state such exceptions within the company’s drafting standard or on the drawing itself (whichever works best for the situation).