FEEDBACK REQUEST: Hole notes for ISO drawings

[jakefowler]

Hi Fusion 360 community,

We are working on adding intelligent hole notes to drawings, and we wanted to get everyone's feedback on the format we should be using for ISO drawings.

The current ISO standard, ISO 15786:2008, defines hole notes in the format below (ascending order of operations, letter notation of counterbore/countersink):

 

However, we’ve seen many ISO drawings still using the prior standard, which is more in-line with ASME notation (descending order of operations, symbol notation of counterbore/countersink):

 

So, we had this question for ISO drawings creators:

Until now, we have tried to strictly adhere to the latest ISO & ASME standards. Should we do the same here and use the ISO 15786:2008 definition for hole notes in ISO drawings, or would that cause you problems? (in which case do we need to provide affordances to use the older standard?)

Thanks all!

Jake

[I_Forge_KC]

In my experience, the current standard is only a standard because the governing body said so. In reality, most design groups are all over the place with the vast majority of conventions going back to whenever a company first adopted CAD (legacy data is king, whether we want to admit it or not). 

What makes Inventor such the powerhouse tool for documentation is the ability to create standards and conventions at will and then propagate them. While the idea of forcing an organization to use only current standards sounds admirable, it's kind of like forcing doctors to only use robots and lasers to perform surgery.

A robust style editor would be the preferred solution (for all dwg aspects, not just holes), IMO. Then I'm free to document and notate as needed for the job at hand. This offers me the best ability to conform to a customer's needs or our internal ones.

[HughesTooling]

Definitely second what @I_Forge_KC said about companies keeping their own standards. In the UK most of the drawing are\should be ISO but I've never seen one using first angle projection like Fusion forces you with ISO.

Just had a look at a few drawings I've received recently and found one that shows first angle in the title block but the drawing itself is third angle.

Mark

[melvinbrian3d]

i will prefer the ASME notation 

[jakefowler]

Many thanks all for the responses!

@I_Forge_KC @HughesTooling Hear you loud and clear - we know that Inventor has been down this road before! We do want to branch out into more powerful customization in the future, but adding a robust engine for this is a huge undertaking (and multiplies the amount of work needed for any drawings enhancements implementing going forward). So until now we've stuck with a simple standards-based approach to help us build out our core functionality as quickly and smoothly as possible. We'll certainly be adding deeper controls as time goes on.

With hole notes, we just found that this approach could be going a bit too far, in that the official ISO notation isn't even commonly recognized by some people we've spoken with. So for now, we want to gauge the most appropriate note styles/options to use by default for this initial implementation.

(N.B. we will let you override hole note text/format after placement; but this would be on a per-note basis, so not as beneficial as a full-on styles-creation feature like Inventor's.)

@melvinbrian3d Thanks for the response! That's consistent with what we've heard from others.

Further thoughts & feedback extremely welcome,

Thanks!

Jake

[Anonymous]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

Definitely second what @I_Forge_KC said about companies keeping their own standards. In the UK most of the drawing are\should be ISO but I've never seen one using first angle projection like Fusion forces you with ISO.

---

I'm in the UK. As it happens, I'm reading BS 8888 right now (which is the technical drawing standard for the UK, and is based on the ISO standards). It specifies both First and Third angle, so you can choose which one you prefer -- as long as you say which you're using.

And, regarding hole notes BS 8888 shows the symbology that's also in the ASME standard as an option.

So, in summary, I agree with the others in that we need to be able to choose/define the symbols freely without being constrained by the drawing standard that we've chosen for our templates.