cutting off my crosshatching at thread-level, is possible?

Hey all,

our fastener library is full of screws and bolts that have
no cosmetic threads. Never saw the need for 'em. We made
these fasteners down through the years as we went on our
merry way, and I think about all of 'em exhibit a solid
cylinder that is the same size as the major diameter of
whatever thread they were supposed to be. In other words,
1/4-20 screws always had the main threading body be 0.25
inches. Not the tap diameter of 0.201.

As such, in an assembly drawing cross-section, one ends up
with the crosshatching of the base part coming right over
the solid edge of our fasteners. And as it's a
cross-section usually with no-hidden-line removal happening,
we don't show the inner edge (major diameter) of the base
part (the hole) which leaves the base part's crosshatching
hanging in space inside our fasteners . . .

PLEEEEASE don't tell me to go back and fix our fasteners.
There's only ten bazillion of the things . . .

I've tried messing with dtl-file parameters like
hlr_for_threads and thread_standard and others, too. None
seem to have any effect on where the crosshatching stops.
Is there a way to do this? Or should I just bite the
mascara and start applying cosmetics to the ten bazillion ...

help, please?
t'anks,
thalia

p.s in case you're wondering, we never had a problem before
'cause no one ever went over our drawings with a bloody
magnifying glass before! some people . . . .

 

p.s in case you're wondering, we never had a problem before

That seems to be the source of your problem: anal checking. I think the only
way you'll fix this is to fix your models, but in what way does this add
value to your company? Don't waste your time. As long as the drawing is
unambiguous, it serves it's purpose. In future, model your screws properly,
lesson learned.

Unless of course the person saying you need the drawings to look 'right' is
the parson paying of course, in which case roll up your sleeves and get
ready for an all-nighter

 

Creating assembly cuts that only cut through the hardware is the only other
way there is. It might not be practical but it would be graphically
correct.

I'm guessing you would have one hundred bazillion of those.

 

Thalia, let me see if I got this ~ fastener at nominal, part the fastener
attaches to is tap drill sized, so there is an interference fit in assembly.
And when you detail it, the cross hatching from the part and fastener
overlap.

Assuming I've got it right, this is the 'best' (easiest) thing I can
suggest. Modify the cross hatching in the drawing. When it prehighlights,
click on it with LMB to select, RMB for flyout menu and select 'Properties'.
There's your old, familiar MOD XHATCH menu. Lots you can do with this,
including adjusting spacing, angle and line style of every component in the
cross section. Find the menu item labelled 'Next Xsec' and keep pressing
till you have the fastener xhatching highlighted. Go to the menu above and
click 'Excl comp'. This will remove the fastener from the cross hatching
scheme, improve the appearance greatly and possibly satisfy your checkers.
Since they've started checking Pro/e drawings, which are typically much more
accurate than hand drafted or cad drafted drawings, they've gotten much
pickier. But I can't see that they could object to not cross-hatching
fasteners.

Other possiblities could include assembly drawings in cross section without
any fasteners by using simplified reps; I also thought that the MOD XHATCH
menu, which allows modifying the line style, might let you give it a color
whith a white, instead of neutral, background. If you can create such a
color in color.map, it might block out object and xhatch lines behind the
fastener.

David Janes

 

We model the screws to the size that they represent. Example 1/4-20 screw
is .25 and the hole is shown to the minor diameter thus showing an
interference. We also show the cosmetic threads on the models. As far as
cross hatching goes, is it really a big deal? Most of the time we exclude
the screw from being cross hatched.

 

Try this:
Select the view with the cross section. Got to the 'Edit' menu, select
'Properties'. At the bottom of the View Modify menu, select 'View Disp'.
Then, select the very top option, 'Wireframe'.

All the lines in the view should appear as solid object lines.

David Janes

P.S. Thanks for the jpeg, so nice to not have to interepret writing into
graphics, which is about as lame as reconstructing a three-view drawing,
mentally, into a solid.

BTW, Pro/GOOFY struck again, as your drawing shows the only place in the
known universe where people try to decipher whitish, grayed out lines (plus
yellow) on black, instead of what the human race discovered in the days of
papyrus, that writing and drawing go better, black on white. If you really
want to shock your cohorts, go to the View menu, find Display settings and
pick 'System colors', then go to the interface menu called Scheme and pick
'black on white'. If this is too harsh, modify the background color in the
menu. When you get used to it (and we all started out with that dumbshit
black background), you'll find it much easier to tell what's going on. DJ