Best way to use a "3-D" drawing and still actual measurement data?

Started by karininwinnipeg, September 18, 2014, 12:49:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

karininwinnipeg

Hi everybody. I have a client who makes technical drawings of (can't tell you so I'll say that they are) blue boxes. I am training her to create shapes, and specifically, to use an appropriately-scaled page so the shapes can have geometry data added for height/width. (All good.) But with a drawing that looks 3-D, the entire shape is actually larger than the measurement of the closest side. (see pic, where the height is measured) The measurement of the actual "side" of the box is the one we care about, so when the boxes go to production they can cut the patterns correctly. But when all of the drawing parts are grouped and then saved as a shape, this throws the measurements off.

I was considering using the dimensions shapes as the "output," for reports etc., and maybe even incorporating those into the shapes in the custom stencil.

Does anyone have any suggestions for the best way to do this? The end result should be a collection of stencils of custom shapes, all of which are drawn to scale and have measurement data (and other data, such as material used etc.). The data will be output into a report that will help manufacturing know all the component parts in the box and what size everything is (these boxes have other aspects besides the box part -- there are also handles, hinges, locks, etc.).

Any ideas as to the best approach?

Thanks!

wapperdude

Several things to be aware of:
  1.) In a 3D drawing, not all measurements are literal.  Because a shape is rotated, it's true width will be foreshortened and not directly measureable.
  2.) The two dimensions that you show, the 110. is an actual dimension of the height of the front face.  The 2nd dimension, 127 is not actually measuring anything real.
  3.) Manufacturers will want a face on view of each surface.  That is, if you cut the box open, lay it flat on a table, then measure the front face, one side face, and one top face.  Those are the actual dimensions.  When put together as a box, and if the box is rotated to look like your 3D image, they will match.
  4.) Any handles, or other features, must be shown on the desired surface of step 3 when the box is laying flat.

HTH
Wapperdude
Visio 2019 Pro

karininwinnipeg

Thanks, Wapperdude. You are correct on all counts. My question is really about your #2 - the fact that the measurement of the drawing is actually a "not real" measurement. In other words, I want my client to be able to type the "real world" measurements for height and width in the size and position box, but since the shape includes all of the "fake 3D" elements, it's not accurate. So I'm wondering how people handle this. I think the way I'm leaning is to accurately size the "front face" (it is in the picture) and not worry about the size of the whole shape. And then use the measurement shape to show the 110".

The only problem that I can see with this is that in the report data, the box shape (which is the front face plus all the other sides, all grouped together) will report as 127" tall, which isn't right.

Which is my conundrum.  :-\

K

wapperdude

The width and height reflect the overall size of the selection box for the group.  Are the front, back, and 2 sides all the same?  If so, there are several possible approaches.  All rely on the size of the front shape.  If the sides are different, then, it get significantly more complicated.  But, for 4 equal sides:
1.)  Right click the group shape > format > behavior > Selection > members first.  Now the first click can be the front face to get the correct dimensions.

2.) More involved, Basically redraws the shape.
     a.)  ungroup
     b.)  select front shape and convert to group
     c.)  open shapesheet and under protection set LockCalcWH =1, and close shapesheet
     d.) keep the front shape selected, and select all of the remaing shapes
     e.)  menu bar > shape > grouping > add to group.

Now when you select the group shape, you select the front shape automatically, and get it's size in the Size and Position Window.

HTH
Wapperdude
Visio 2019 Pro

Yacine

Hi Karin,

QuoteBut when all of the drawing parts are grouped and then saved as a shape, this throws the measurements off.

Why are the measurements thrown off? I couldn't imagine making a manufacturing drawing without them.
Yacine

karininwinnipeg

The correct measurement of the example graphic would be 110", which is the measurement of the box face. This is just one part of the shape, which is four or five shapes grouped together (front, back, left side, right side, bottom, and opt. top). The bounding box of the entire shape includes the "overhang" or whatever you want to call it, that is really just the perspective, which makes the whole shape 127".

Sounds like you work with this kind of thing -- "I couldn't imagine making a manufacturing drawing without them. "  How do you manage your measurements with your drawings and "parts" of drawings?

Yacine

QuoteHow do you manage your measurements with your drawings and "parts" of drawings?
It'a tedious job.
Something to manufacture may either be an assembly or a single part.
You draw the assembly first and for each single part you make a separate manufacturing drawing.
https://www.google.de/search?q=manufacturing+drawing&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=z1r&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=soAaVNS_B-uI7Abl84GgDA&ved=0CCIQsAQ&biw=1281&bih=765

https://www.google.de/search?q=assembly+drawing&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=p2r&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&channel=sb&biw=1281&bih=765&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5oAaVLOhBqKv7Ab7yoGoBg&ved=0CCAQsAQ

But I'm not sure whether this conversation is going in the right direction.
Professionals use this method to manufacture stuff. From what I read, I understand that you want to skip the making of several drawings and use a simple 3D view as manufacturing drawing. This is risky if money is involved, as misleading information may generate unwanted loops and delays. A 3D view is only used if it helps understanding otherwise too complexe 2D-projections.

In the last years, the industry came to design in 3D, here you have a first modelling step in which you define the shape and the dimensions of the part and a second drawing step in which you represent in a traditional way the part.
Whilst most professional tools are very expensive, there are some open source ones that you may google.
Yacine

karininwinnipeg

Thank you so much for posting those links. Looking at some of them, I think the real issue is that my client should be doing "2-D" or flat drawings to get measurements, and then a 3-D representation of the boxes to give a visual idea of how it looks put together. And/or, we could save as custom shapes just the front of the box, with measurements.

The thing they make is a container, so I'm calling them "boxes" so I don't divulge trade secrets. :0) My approach is to start her on a "library" of custom shapes, with all the component parts, and making a few customized stencils to use. The boxes have different components, like straps, hinges, etc. We're trying to streamline the process a little by making some reusable and correctly-sized "pieces" to use over and over again.


zhuravsky


karininwinnipeg

Thank you for that example -- I'll pass that along to my client.  :)