...
| View file | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Author: Alison Thompson Date:
For Arjun Mandair 's changes:
“Wasn’t asked to do so, but I changed the M5 bolt from the backholder mount to the baseplate to M4. Please let me know if I should change this!” Unless there is a reason it need to be M4 due to COTS components (which I don’t think is the case), according to CAD guidelines, all WARG parts/assemblies should use M5 or M3 bolts only
If you made both of the thickness changes and adjusted tolerances as discussed, should be good. PDM is broken for me atm but I’m happy to approve the manufacturing of the “servo backholder” if those are the only changes
For Justin Liu 's drawing:
Overall looks good, a few notes:
I would move both dimensions of your detail view to the same side of the part
Make the thickness of the material a reference dimension because it’s not changing but is useful
Your section view scale looks to be the same scale as your main drawing but is labelled as a different scale
You don’t need the material thickness as a note if you have it dimensioned, if you would like it to be clearer that it’s 1/8th in you can edit the properties of the thickness dimension to have 3 decimal places for the imperial dimension (message in discord about fixing drawing template so you don’t have dual dimensions everywhere, but per the CAD guidelines we use them on dimensions where the imperial dimension is useful, which it is here)