DCG discussion thread

galway.gaa

papu wrote: »

Found it pretty handy =]

just out of interest what do you think is pretty handy. like does anybody think they got an A1???

papu

galway.gaa wrote: »

just out of interest what do you think is pretty handy. like does anybody think they got an A1???

erm confident I got all the questions out .

I did the boreholes question on a seperate sheet so i might have messed that up.
if that doesnt count against me then yeah an A hopefully

Comer1

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I know,but I don't think it was very fair to give an abstract one like this on the first year.None of the exam papers or books had anything about a stratum with one borehole where you are asked to find the thickness.

I agree, that mining question would have put alot of higher level students off. I'll bet that quite a few might not even be familiar with the term outcrop unless they had done a few OL questions.

The short questions looked very time-consuming

Oblique planes question will be answered by very few, it was all over the place, very off-putting when you only have about 30 minutes per question. Difficult to even recognise it as an oblique planes question.

The last part of the intersecting planes question was also tricky. I think you'd have to get the true shape of the triangle to find the inner triangle.

Did people have difficulty getting through all the questions?

Des23

papu wrote: »

I did the boreholes question on a seperate sheet so i might have messed that up.

I was contemplating that, in fact I actually wasted about 5 mins vacillating over what to do. In the end i just but the xy line in between d, e and f because it was the only was it would fit. I can't see them docking marks for doing it on a seperate sheet anyway, provided the positions of the three points in relation to eachother are the same, its their own fault for putting stuff on the paper that they know will not be able to fit in normaly.

Comer1 wrote: »

The last part of the intersecting planes question was also tricky. I think you'd have to get the true shape of the triangle to find the inner triangle.

Yeah that is what I did, although the true shape I got wasn't a 45 degree triangle, but that is probably my own fault.

Comer1 wrote: »

I agree, that mining question would have put alot of higher level students off. I'll bet that quite a few might not even be familiar with the term outcrop unless they had done a few OL questions.

Yeah I remember when our teacher showed that to us I was pissed off because I thought it was too easy to come up and we only had one class to do the whole of mining.... how wrong I was!

WolfForager

I didn't get the dihedral angle... i don't know how i ****ed up that bad but i ended up getting 2 more triangles!!

Pygmalion

Didn't know what outcrop meant or anything, but I assumed it just meant that the 3 points were points on the top surface?

If so I worked out the angle to take the auxiliary elevation at out mathematically and just added in a few lines to make it look like I did it graphically :P.

Comer1

Pygmalion wrote: »

Didn't know what outcrop meant or anything, but I assumed it just meant that the 3 points were points on the top surface?

Correct:cool:

That mining question really has me pi$$ed off

papu

Pygmalion wrote: »

Didn't know what outcrop meant or anything, but I assumed it just meant that the 3 points were points on the top surface?

If so I worked out the angle to take the auxiliary elevation at out mathematically and just added in a few lines to make it look like I did it graphically :P.

i turned it into a planes question , i didnt see how there was space to fit it onto the sheet without turning it portrait and doing it on the *left* but then the strike would be messed up because its ment to be in relation to compass north i transfered the 3 points onto a new sheet , had room for an elevation and the auxillaries , really hope i dont get screwed because of it , because i understood it perfectly :mad:

Zonda999

Des23 wrote: »

Yeah that is what I did, although the true shape I got wasn't a 45 degree triangle, but that is probably my own fault.

Had the same issue. Its because of the shape of the thing. One of the sides was already a true shape meaning that you couldn't have just taken a horizontal cut in elevation OR plan. to get the edge view and son on to the true shape. That made it totally abstract. Didnt know what to do with it then!:(If they were just normal planes like on the old paper it would have been fine. There was also a knack in gettin the line of intersection. Very snakey paper IMO.

Ginja Ninja

WolfForager wrote: »

I didn't get the dihedral angle... i don't know how i ****ed up that bad but i ended up getting 2 more triangles!!

No offence,but the majority of the time that is accuracy,they shouldn't take much off you for it,if you get the 2nd auxillary right and all that.

I'm F****** sickened by that bore-holes question,it's like the first example in the book,but we never done it at all,our teacher must've assumed it was OL only,or at least very unlikely for honours

WolfForager

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

No offence,but the majority of the time that is accuracy,they shouldn't take much off you for it,if you get the 2nd auxillary right and all that.

I'm F****** sickened by that bore-holes question,it's like the first example in the book,but we never done it at all,our teacher must've assumed it was OL only,or at least very unlikely for honours

Bollocks, just realised what i did... I treated the final auxillary as another elevation instead of a plan!! Such a simple bloody mistake, how didn't i spot that???

aido179

flew through it. i didn't go near the interpen to save time and was finished with 20 mins left... happy out! im realy hoping i've kept my A1 avarage!

timmywex

Des23 wrote: »

I was contemplating that, in fact I actually wasted about 5 mins vacillating over what to do. In the end i just but the xy line in between d, e and f because it was the only was it would fit. I can't see them docking marks for doing it on a seperate sheet anyway, provided the positions of the three points in relation to eachother are the same, its their own fault for putting stuff on the paper that they know will not be able to fit in normaly.

+1

Did the same, looked slightly messy though with an xy in the middle of the plan! :cool:

ironclaw

Isaac702 wrote: »

I cant really agree with that. Although the layout of the paper was pretty much the same. The style of it was completely different.
The questions in the sample were mostly straight forward and stuck to the topic that was asked.
Today's paper however in the later parts of questions asked questions that were more abstract and in some cases unrelated to the topic in that particular question.

Todays papers was what a lemon is to an orange when you compare them based on the sample paper. They were totally different in terms of difficulty. I didn't get an A1 in it, thats for sure. All that wasted time on that stupid project to be given that paper...


Short questions were reasonable

The necklace.. WTF... enough said there! :pac:

Planes.. Great question!

Interpen... Ok

Boat... Grand

Roads...Couldn't have been better

The mining gemotry was guess work on my behalf. I've never seen anything like that before.

Anyway, rant over.... :pac:

Prowetod

The mining question and part c of the development question will cost me the A.

We had never touched parabola's....

croker1

i was delighted:D

think i did good in the short questions except i left out the last part of the axonometric one coz i thought id have time to come bak to it but i didnt..

planes question was very nice except i didn really det the last part properly.. interpenetration was perfect:D ... dynamic mech's was savage, that was the one question i was dreading and it ended up one o my best!! assemblies was savage too, kinda had to rush it in the end but i think i just about managed to finish it properly..

just as a matter of interest what hieght did ppl get for the last part of assemblies..? i got 120???

croker1

croker1 wrote: »

just as a matter of interest what hieght did ppl get for the last part of assemblies..? i got 120???

I got 113, so either of us can't be too far off.

croker1

same thing really isnt it!! they prob have an allowence of roughly 5 or 10mm anyway

TheManWho

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I got 113, so either of us can't be too far off.

It was 108 for me, I'd say they will allow for a fairly wide margin

Fince

i tapped the map sheet onto the middle of the A2 sheet and just did the elevation on the A2. wrote a few times ELEVATION FOR C-2 on it because if the corrector just looks at the A2 sheet it would make no sense.
it is ridiculous the way they set out the mining questions, in all the sample papers.

i thought it was a nice paper overall. A-4 could be done in literally 3 mins., they couldn't have made the a part of the axonometric much easier. i think my method for the perspective was right, but it didn't look right.

the way they put in the planes question was very clever imo. it made it a lot easier to visual than 2 abstract planes and yes the d part was tricky, but they had to put something in to seperate the a students from the b students. the interpen was the same as all the sample questions and the questions in the book, so couldn't have any complaints.

road question could not have been easier, only cut on one side, only fill on the other. the mining was unexpected, but i think they were trying to make it easier, as the outcrop and stuff are the kind of questions they introduce mining with. i treated df and ef as two lines and made it into a skew lines question to find the strike and dip. don't know if it was right or not, but again, it'll seperate the a's and b's.

again, i thought the structural question was very clever. they put in most of the elements that they want to examine (elipse, hyperboloid, hyperbola) but kept it to one question.

i thought the people who set this exam did very well overall, the one fault i would have is that they underestimated people's ability to do mining questions and it confused (by the looks of this thread) everyone.

Des23

Fince wrote: »

i think my method for the perspective was right, but it didn't look right.

road question could not have been easier, only cut on one side, only fill on the other. the mining was unexpected, but i think they were trying to make it easier, as the outcrop and stuff are the kind of questions they introduce mining with. i treated df and ef as two lines and made it into a skew lines question to find the strike and dip. don't know if it was right or not, but again, it'll seperate the a's and b's.

again, i thought the structural question was very clever. they put in most of the elements that they want to examine (elipse, hyperboloid, hyperbola) but kept it to one question.

I felt the same about my perspective, it kind of went weird, with the lines of the far side of the roof, although I know my method was correct

The roads were lovely alright, as for the mining, I think a lot of people may not have understood what the 'strike' is and that would have put them off when asked in a different context. Still, though was pretty doable.

I'd feel the same regards the structures, rather than having to do seperate drawings, it is a lot more efficient to throw them into one big drawing. It was quite an easy question aswell.

Weezybabee

hey how did everyone do the mining question??

Jello

Well I did shockingly bad.

I thought I had prepared well but that psper wasn't nice at all. I'd never seen that type of mining question before so hadn't a clue how to do it. Interpenetration was ok but I didn't finish it. I know I made a mistake on the planes too. That was all I did except for an attempt at 2 of the short questions.

So yeah I'm really annoyed, I'd say I've kissed my first college choice goodbye. Most people I talked to weren't happy either. Two lads left after an hour!

:mad:


I think my project was decent enough though so hopefully I'll get a few points out of it.

mink_man

for the mining question you just make a lamina out of the 3 points and then go level line from whatecer, parrallel to the other to get "o"
then do the same in plan to get the strike, surprised alot couldnt do this. this is the only thing i could do! i guessed literally everything! i defo failed it!

Weezybabee

nice one, thats how i did it as well! i got the thickness alrite as well so happy enuf. The shorts were class, nice paper overall

pearliefan

It was so much better than I thought it would be!:D ended up being the only paper I've really enjoyed doing! Anything I managed to study yesterday(which really wasn't alot-which was why I was Very worried) paid off!
Only thing I couldn't understand was the mining:( which had always been a good question for me.... but sure what harm! it's finished!
Bring on Monday 12.30!:)

Heggy

I thought that was a pretty fair paper. I know I made a few mistakes, but they were silly ones mostly, drafting errors couldn't remember centre of curvature etc. Surface development was a bit awkward

As for B-1 EIther I've done something seriously wrong or it was piss easy.
IT was essentially a long junior cert question, JC parabola method, JC construction of an object with the grid.
The only LC part was the oblique plane, and you have the horizontal trace once you have the drawing done anyway.

Geologic was very simple, all you had to know was the definition of the strike, (the direction of a horizontal line on the stratum)

I'm not saying I got an A1, I'm prone to errors, but overall difficulty wasn't bad.

galway.gaa

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I got 113, so either of us can't be too far off.

i got 110

VinnyTGM

Thought it was ok, I didn't get anything out fully though.

errlloyd

The planes question involved getting the inner triangle on the 45 degree set square.

I almost certainly did it wrong, because my set square was PERFECTLY 60-30... Someone explain.