Metric vs Imperical

I am working with a new team from Toronto and they use the metric system. Okay that's cool, I've done tons of metric projects in the past. But one of their engineers who doesn't see quite well submitted some drawings to me that I swear are about to start WWIII between us. His claim is that it's the tolerance in the metric system. My claim is that he needs thicker glasses. It involves more than just that so let me elaborate.

The drawings were created in Canada so I assume he used millimeters for his units. However, when I open the drawing the units are set to feet.

The issue is that many of the lines he drew which should be horizontal or vertical have an ever so slight slant to them. When I check the properties of these lines there is a small value in the Delta X or Delta Y box which should read zero.

I open one of his drawings and check one of his dimentions and it shows 6'-3". But what it should be is 75mm. I understand that he got the number of units right and when I set the units in the drawings to millimeters all seems well. Until I begin really working with it and find all these lines that are not plumb or level with the X-Y axis.

Has anyone else out there run into this kind of thing? The author of these drawings is a seasoned PE and does posess at least some AutoCAD skills above the beginner's level. Still he claims there is something with AutoCAD tolerances and not his method of drawing the lines which is the root of this problem.

Ask him the question, "Have you ever used Ortho" in AutoCAD ?"

I see this a fair amount in the company I work for - we have a number of graduates who think they can use AutoCAD. How wrong they are.

Perhaps your man doesn't know as much as he thought he did. Has he ever heard of Orthogonal or used Polar tracking? Perhaps someone has set his crosshair at a very slight angle with Snapang, and he has never noticed it

I think that the excuse about AutoCAD tolerances is a fairy tale

As one that always works in the metric system, I have idea why the metrics would need larger tolerances than imperial system so I second the opinion that it's bull.

The fact that his unit is set to feet while being mm shows to me in itself that he is not that familiar with AutoCAD, it's not uncommon though - more than a few times have I had to scale x-refs and blocks from outside sources by 25.4 to get them right.

My view is that this boils down to, do you want to take this issue to the source (convince him that he's wrong and teach him the right way), or do you want to find a way to live with it (if the slant is consistent, make a macro to rotate every drawing you get from him by so-and-so many degrees)?

as ever tried using ORTHO.

years ago we had a subbie who produced a set of electrical drawings in which NONE of the vertical lines printed. They look fine on screen but just didn't print. I looked at the drawing and found they all had a delta X component, not much but enough for our print driver to ignore them.

Asked why he didn't use ORTHO or snap he just replied, "I've never needed them". He had quite a short contract.

After purge, ortho has been one of my best friends.

AutoCAD tolerances? What's that?

I can understand, drawn without tolerances.

Label, i.e.: 2.5 ± .015, for fabrication (machining), but, the AutoCAD is drawn right on the money.

0° is ZERO, nothin' but.

 

0° is ZERO, nothin' but.

This only seems to ring true when it is drawn by someone with knowledge of AutoCAD.

For all others, 0° means between 359° and 1° (and sometimes more and/or sometimes less)

This only seems to ring true when it is drawn by someone with knowledge of AutoCAD.

For all others, 0° means between 359° and 1° (and sometimes more and/or sometimes less)

Speaking of degrees, years ago I worked clockwise.

Today, always counterclockwise. 0° at 3 o'clock, 90° at 12 o'clock and so on.

My work is primarily cylindrical storage tanks.

I guess south of the equator might rotate clockwise?

0° ± 1° ~ Now that might confuse someone!

I suspect he had a snap set and was using that rather than ortho.

South of the equator here, still anticlockwise (angles)

As one that always works in the metric system, ... I more than a few times have I had to scale x-refs and blocks from outside sources by 24.5 to get them right.

My view is that this boils down to, do you want to take this issue to the source (convince him that he's wrong and teach him the right way), ...

Wow.... how do you scale by 24.5 and get the right size? The rest of us have to use 25.4

Wow.... how do you scale by 24.5 and get the right size? The rest of us have to use 25.4

see, can't even get that right

Well, with a typo in the thread title, that sets the general trend