dsulli Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Has anyone found any discrepancies in the hardware dimensions? Here's one: The M12 (narrow) flatwashers in IC measure 1.6mm thick, whereas standard, real-life stainless steel washers measure 2.5mm thick. It may not seem like much, but for me it meant having to face a socket head cap screw head on the lathe so that it could sit below flush in a counterbore. If I find any others, I'll list them here, but this one caused me to investigate the fit problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 We found that the Socket Head Cap Screws are not to standard size either. We haven't really investigated any further but I suspect that other screw/bolt/nut sizes are incorrect as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Khenkin Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 I don't even assume the IC hardware models are accurate - I use them only where the dimensions are not critical (illustration). For real life screws, I go to McMaster-Carr catalog webpage, and get a 3D model of the screw I'm using when I place the order. Their models are somewhat simplified, but all dimensions are correct. Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Realistically, I don't see any reason why IronCad users should have to run around looking for accurate hardware. Why not just get the sizes correct and be done with it. We machine parts sometimes within a hair of a clamp/bolt or other fixturing device and we need to know that a tool spinning 20,000 rpm and travelling 300 ipm is not going to hit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhovatter Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 I agree that Screws should be correct size It is a pain at first but I pull in the common size screws I use and modify them to real world size and save them in a catalog and that works actually faster in long run because I just drag and drop. Also in that catalog I keep common "correct size" washers and dowel pins. I even have the CNC mill tables complete with "T" slots and also the Kurt vise and angle plates. Dallas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsulli Posted March 21, 2002 Author Share Posted March 21, 2002 Normally, I would simply measure the bolt/washer that I intended to use, since I have a wide variety of hardware in and on my desk. However, M12 screws/bolts are not used in any of our products (up until I specified them in a new product), so I relied on the models provided in the software. Of course, I could've looked up the correct dimensions in the Machinery handbook or metric hardware catalog, but I assumed the models to be accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Khenkin Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 I agree that IC should have accurate hardware, but my point is - how do you KNOW it is accurate? Should I check model's dimensions when I make up a new piece of hardware from IC Tools? I always go to manufacturer/distributor for the model of what they actually make and what I will be using in my product - it just removes any doubts, I don't have to think about it. Alex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Andersson Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 search your harddrive for a catalog named Ironpro.icc and open it. there is a new screw tool. Drag a screw and drop it on a part and it will create a hole. I have not checked the dim's do. Robert Andersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EricFoy Posted March 26, 2002 Share Posted March 26, 2002 Okay... I couldn't resist chiming in on this one. There is simply no excuse for the dimensions of IronCAD's hardware having any deviation from the standards, which are well established, widely published, and broadly adhered to in industry. Can we not all agree on this? That said, we all recognize the fact that double checking actuals is a good practice, and more imperative as the fit becomes more critical, but this is certainly not a valid reason for the developers of the Tools Catalog not to get it right in the first place. We should be checking to see whether the screws conform to the model - NOT whether the model has acurately depicted the screws! In order for the Tools Catalog to be universally taken seriously by the engineering community, it MUST be brought into conformance with at least one standard, and the more standards, the better. And why not? I know that IronCAD LLC certainly hopes the community takes the Sheetmetal Catalog seriously, as it is billed as a major component of functionality of IronCAD. I think it is easy for us users to dismiss the fact that "Tools" is only marginally or only sometimes useful to us, because IronCAD is, after all, already doing so much for us. But given the fact that fixing this problem involves no coding, no algorithmic derivation, but only the research and tabulation of scalar values, which a first year intern could handily accomplish; and given the kind of credibility boost, advertising leverage, and industry respect that would result, I would humbly submit that the IronCREW would be foolish to leave it the way it is. There... whew! I got it out.id='Arial'>id=size4> -Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Khenkin Posted March 26, 2002 Share Posted March 26, 2002 Right on, Eric! Just as it is our responsibility to make sure the screws we model are the screws we are going to use, it is IC's responsibility to make sure the screws they model are in conformance with existing standards. Alex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted March 26, 2002 Share Posted March 26, 2002 Eric, That's where I was basically going with this. Why half-ass it when you could just do it correctly. And you're absolutely right in your assertion that if IC wants to be taken seriously then these tools and other add-ons should be useful in a serious way, meaning the conformance to a standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EricFoy Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 ... and while we're on this topic... How about the other Tools catalogs? I haven't used them extensively, and I can't speak with any real authority here, but have you guys found discrepancies in the Steel Stock or Bearing catalogs? I've tried to use the Bearings catalog a few times, and I've always had to manually model my own bearings because the catalog doesn't include the bearings I'm specifying, or it simply doesn't model them correctly. Sure would be nice to be able to plug in a bearing spec and have it pop the right one in... Just a thought. -Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Andersson Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 About bearings, if you are working much with bearings you may want to take a look at the bearing supplier web page. Like http://www.skf.com/ for one. There you can select exactly your model of bearing and download it as a SAT/ Parasolid or STEP AP203. No fee. There is also extra help with calculations if you need that. Here you know that everything is updated. On the otherhand it is often not needed to have the full model of the bearing. Large number of bearings with balls takes resources to handle. Robert Andersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhovatter Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 The tools catalog I have other problems with is Gear tool. Helical gears don't work.even with the default entries in the menu. The other thing is the way my gears end up looking is to have a hole pattern to bolt them on the end of my rotary dies. If I go back and add properties i.e. change the tooth size, the bolt pattern goes away. But I can live with that. I would like the helical gear to at least look like a gear. Dallas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Ok, I'm giving in on this one. I going to make a screw catalogue and have been trying to figure the best way to go about it. The trick is to get the screws you want and still get the 2D representation. The problem then is that you can never go back to the "Fastener" tool once you drop the screw into a scene. So be it, I guess. Now that I've come to grips with the time I need to invest in this, I would like to know from the Ironcrew whether this will be worth the effort. I would hate to spend the time and energy only to find that the "Fastener" tool has been/is being improved to have workable functionality. What say? Also, is there any chance that the source could be made available so that the community could put this together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpawlak Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 If anyone is going to be messing around with fasteners, add carbon steel with black oxide finish to the material drop down box. Every time I edit the Add-On properties I have to re-SmartPaint the fasteners black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmccall Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 This site has a link to an additional catalog of fastener parts. http://www.iccentral.com/ Go through these menu steps Models> Manufacturing> 80/20, Inc. That will get you to the following categories Extrusions 15 Series Joining Plates Fasteners Or follow these steps to get to a catalog of socket cap screws Models> Manufacturing> General Manufacturing SHCS Catalog of socket head cap screws The question still remains, are the models correct?... I beleive these catalogs were created by companies that supply or use these parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpawlak Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 The fasteners in those catalogs are based on what is generated by IronCAD's fastener tool. The fasteners were given part numbers and descriptions and SmartPainted. The geometry would probably be no more accurate than the IC fastener tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Anybody at the nerve centre care to comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Ignore him. He might go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdomenicali Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Good to see a major discussion of a problem I beefed about (along with others) at least a year (probably two) ago. There has never been a reply from the developers. I've always assumed that the code was written for this tool in such a way that it calculates the head dimensions based on the nominal screw diameter. To me that would explain the odd values for head diameter it generates. And also why it's not such an easy task to fix it. I'm guessing it was not written to use a look-up table, but rather using a parametric approach (an equation to generate each dimension). Just a hunch. Regards, Peter Domenicali Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Khenkin Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 C'mon, Iron People - what's up with this particular topic? You are so responsive in general, to see no comment from you here is almost eerie. Or are you planning a surprize ? Alex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Dorrington Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 He started to walk away but then he came back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Khenkin Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Hmmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Hi All, Sorry for the late reply. We wanted to investigate the issue before we posted a response. We have found the issue that you are reporting with the Fastener Tools and have a team of R&D engineers in the process of correcting the issue. When we have a solution, I will post a response to let you know where to download the resolution. We are sorry for any inconvenience and we are working hard to address the issue shortly. Thanks, Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.