cutting off my crosshatching at thread-level, is possible?

Hey all,
our fastener library is full of screws and bolts that have no cosmetic threads. Never saw the need for 'em. We made
these fasteners down through the years as we went on our merry way, and I think about all of 'em exhibit a solid cylinder that is the same size as the major diameter of whatever thread they were supposed to be. In other words, 1/4-20 screws always had the main threading body be 0.25 inches. Not the tap diameter of 0.201.
As such, in an assembly drawing cross-section, one ends up with the crosshatching of the base part coming right over the solid edge of our fasteners. And as it's a cross-section usually with no-hidden-line removal happening, we don't show the inner edge (major diameter) of the base part (the hole) which leaves the base part's crosshatching hanging in space inside our fasteners . . .
PLEEEEASE don't tell me to go back and fix our fasteners. There's only ten bazillion of the things . . .
I've tried messing with dtl-file parameters like hlr_for_threads and thread_standard and others, too. None seem to have any effect on where the crosshatching stops. Is there a way to do this? Or should I just bite the mascara and start applying cosmetics to the ten bazillion ...
help, please? t'anks, thalia
p.s in case you're wondering, we never had a problem before 'cause no one ever went over our drawings with a bloody magnifying glass before! some people . . . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That seems to be the source of your problem: anal checking. I think the only way you'll fix this is to fix your models, but in what way does this add value to your company? Don't waste your time. As long as the drawing is unambiguous, it serves it's purpose. In future, model your screws properly, lesson learned.
Unless of course the person saying you need the drawings to look 'right' is the parson paying of course, in which case roll up your sleeves and get ready for an all-nighter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Creating assembly cuts that only cut through the hardware is the only other way there is. It might not be practical but it would be graphically correct.
I'm guessing you would have one hundred bazillion of those.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We model the screws to the size that they represent. Example 1/4-20 screw is .25 and the hole is shown to the minor diameter thus showing an interference. We also show the cosmetic threads on the models. As far as cross hatching goes, is it really a big deal? Most of the time we exclude the screw from being cross hatched.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thalia, let me see if I got this ~ fastener at nominal, part the fastener attaches to is tap drill sized, so there is an interference fit in assembly. And when you detail it, the cross hatching from the part and fastener overlap.
Assuming I've got it right, this is the 'best' (easiest) thing I can suggest. Modify the cross hatching in the drawing. When it prehighlights, click on it with LMB to select, RMB for flyout menu and select 'Properties'. There's your old, familiar MOD XHATCH menu. Lots you can do with this, including adjusting spacing, angle and line style of every component in the cross section. Find the menu item labelled 'Next Xsec' and keep pressing till you have the fastener xhatching highlighted. Go to the menu above and click 'Excl comp'. This will remove the fastener from the cross hatching scheme, improve the appearance greatly and possibly satisfy your checkers. Since they've started checking Pro/e drawings, which are typically much more accurate than hand drafted or cad drafted drawings, they've gotten much pickier. But I can't see that they could object to not cross-hatching fasteners.
Other possiblities could include assembly drawings in cross section without any fasteners by using simplified reps; I also thought that the MOD XHATCH menu, which allows modifying the line style, might let you give it a color whith a white, instead of neutral, background. If you can create such a color in color.map, it might block out object and xhatch lines behind the fastener.
David Janes

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Try this: Select the view with the cross section. Got to the 'Edit' menu, select 'Properties'. At the bottom of the View Modify menu, select 'View Disp'. Then, select the very top option, 'Wireframe'.
All the lines in the view should appear as solid object lines.
David Janes
P.S. Thanks for the jpeg, so nice to not have to interepret writing into graphics, which is about as lame as reconstructing a three-view drawing, mentally, into a solid.
BTW, Pro/GOOFY struck again, as your drawing shows the only place in the known universe where people try to decipher whitish, grayed out lines (plus yellow) on black, instead of what the human race discovered in the days of papyrus, that writing and drawing go better, black on white. If you really want to shock your cohorts, go to the View menu, find Display settings and pick 'System colors', then go to the interface menu called Scheme and pick 'black on white'. If this is too harsh, modify the background color in the menu. When you get used to it (and we all started out with that dumbshit black background), you'll find it much easier to tell what's going on. DJ

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--






Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.