Another tp call out?

[Tested]

How would you dimension this one. POSITION.jpg

[Wingman]

There has to be more. You need some BASIC Dimensions that describe the relationship between the two. Is there a note to use the Model for Unspecified Dims? Maybe they meant for you to do that?

[JamesMannes]

2D span?

[craiger_ny]

Do what we are doing and ask for clarification.

[Tested]

There has to be more. You need some BASIC Dimensions that describe the relationship between the two. Is there a note to use the Model for Unspecified Dims? Maybe they meant for you to do that?

No there are BASICs for x, y & z. Sorry thought that to be a given. My question is if they want the TP of -H- but no rotation. Then where should my rotation come from.

[Wingman]

No there are BASICs for x, y & z. Sorry thought that to be a given. My question is if they want the TP of -H- but no rotation. Then where should my rotation come from.

Probably just a 2D Direct Distance like James said.

I don't know your application but I get these from time to time when it really doesn't matter of the rotation is 'correct' as long as a mating module will mount to it.

[Tested]

Do what we are doing and ask for clarification.

Yeah that's where I'm headed. I just wanted to check see if I was having a brain fart before I went to the Engineer. YOU know I don't want him to point it out and get a big head. I have done it as a 2D and it looks like I'm making up numbers

[cmmguy]

Align the feature based on the basic dimensions(rotate to the angle), then do the TP.

[Wingman]

Yeah that's where I'm headed. I just wanted to check see if I was having a brain fart before I went to the Engineer. YOU know I don't want him to point it out and get a big head. I have done it as a 2D and it looks like I'm making up numbers

Well, even as a 2D you need a Nominal Distance.

[Tested]

Align the feature based on the basic dimensions(rotate to the angle), then do the TP.

won't that be |TP|Dia. 0.075|-K-|-F-|-H-| ?

[cmmguy]

won't that be |TP|Dia. 0.075|-K-|-F-|-H-| ?

In a sense, but it also takes the rotational error out of the measurement. How else would you check the basic dimensions? Using 2D distance requires you to "make up" a dimension.

[Wingman]

In a sense, but it also takes the rotational error out of the measurement. How else would you check the basic dimensions? Using 2D distance requires you to "make up" a dimension.

Yep, the Basics simply define a POINT in space. Cartesian and Polar are two ways to say the same thing.
I would do it as CMMguy says here. Find the angle that the two basics create. Rotate to them. Rotate back the Basic Angle and report the two dimensions.

I misunderstood earlier and though you said there were NOT any Basic Dims.

[Tested]

That's what I'm thinking, and why I want them to give me more info.

[Tested]

Yep, the Basics simply define a POINT in space. Cartesian and Polar are two ways to say the same thing.
I would do it as CMMguy says here. Find the angle that the two basics create. Rotate to them. Rotate back the Basic Angle and report the two dimensions.

I misunderstood earlier and though you said there were NOT any Basic Dims.

"Cartesian and Polar are two ways to say the same thing." ???? Not here it doesn't.

With a 2D think the rotation can float.
With a rotate the length can float.
They call it out with NO rotation. That why I'm thinking 2D.

[craiger_ny]

I misunderstood earlier and though you said there were NOT any Basic Dims.

That's what I read too (not what he wrote though). I do exactly what J says when I run into this. Sorry I'll have to read slower next time.