Engine Drawing: Orthographic views to Pictorial View

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the challenges students face in converting orthographic views to pictorial views in Engineering drawing classes. The participants emphasize the importance of accurately representing dimensions and elevations, particularly in relation to the provided grids. Specific errors noted include incorrect dimensions in the top view and the need for dashed lines to represent hidden edges. Participants recommend creating additional grids to clarify the elevations and improve understanding of the 3D representation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of orthographic projection techniques
  • Familiarity with 3D modeling concepts
  • Basic skills in technical drawing and sketching
  • Knowledge of grid systems for drawing
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of orthographic projection in technical drawing
  • Practice converting 3D models to orthographic views using software like AutoCAD
  • Learn about hidden line representation in technical drawings
  • Explore grid scaling techniques for accurate dimensioning
USEFUL FOR

Engineering students, technical drawing instructors, and professionals in design and architecture who seek to improve their skills in translating between orthographic and pictorial views.

umair21
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
We are currently working on normal surfaces in my Engineering drawing class. The book that is assigned to the students has very minimal instructions on how to understand or do the material. I have a problem sketching orthographic views into a pictorial view. I don't any problem looking at a pictorial view or 3 dimensional of an image and then drawing the orthographic views like I did in Image1 but when I am given the opposite I am totally confused about how much the depth of the Image should be for example , Image 2. I would really appreciate it if someone can explain this.











Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


 

Attachments

  • Image1.jpg
    Image1.jpg
    40.5 KB · Views: 612
  • Image 2.jpg
    Image 2.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 538
Physics news on Phys.org
umair21 said:
We are currently working on normal surfaces in my Engineering drawing class. The book that is assigned to the students has very minimal instructions on how to understand or do the material. I have a problem sketching orthographic views into a pictorial view. I don't any problem looking at a pictorial view or 3 dimensional of an image and then drawing the orthographic views like I did in Image1 but when I am given the opposite I am totally confused about how much the depth of the Image should be for example , Image 2. I would really appreciate it if someone can explain this.
I'm not convinced you're getting the first part as well as you think you are. For example, in your top view of Figure 1, the corner defined by faces B and G is square, but isn't shown this way in your top view. Also the corner that has face C is a little longer than it should be. The space you're given to do your work in isn't as helpful as it could be, as it shows a square that is 5 X 5, but the solid's length and width dimensions are 8 X 5. You could either make a grid the right size, or scale things accordingly to keep the same relative shapes.

Actually, I just noticed that two of the grids you have to work with are 5 X 8 - you aren't putting the right elevations in them. The two grids on the right should be the front view and the top view. The 5 x 5 grid should have the left view.

Also, in your left view, you need a dotted vertical line to represent the vertical line that is part of face C. You can't see this edge from the front, which is why your drawing should have it as a dashed line.

I would make three more grids of the same sizes as the ones you have, and put the appropriate elevations in them. Pay closer attention to counting gridlines for the edges you draw.

Once you get a better handle on the first figure, doing the second one will make more sense, I think.
 
I agree with Mark.

The elevation you have marked "front" is 8 units wide x 5 high. Looking at the 3D view that can only correspond with the right hand face containing faces a,b,c not f,g,h.

There are other obvious errors, for example compare face h and g on the 3D view. The width of face h is 3 units and the width of g is 2 units. However on the "front" elevation you have shown both to be 4 units wide.

Have another go.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K