There are books and old sets of hand drafted drawings that can be used as examples for how drawing sets should look like graphically. how dimensions should look, how text should be aligned, line weights stc...
How important is it for drawings now to follow these drawing graphic standards since most sets are done in acad?
At most offices I've worked at ..it takes years to develop Cad standards that work for everyone. And when you go to another office you are faced with the same set of delimas...and trying to convince people of one method or another.
Is the a universal CAD standards out there ??? It seems to me a universal cad-graphic standard would put an end to alot of headaches.
The customer is king.
Some architects offer a product that is above the norm - and they want their drawing standards to reflect it.
Headaches make the world go round baby.
the national standard really does not have graphic standards for drafting a really nice set of documents.
also the national standard does not have a method for x-refs, and where notes, dims, and drawing files are organized.
we need one set of standards that has everything... when people hand drfated there was a set method that everyone followed. we need something like that for CAD
I started out in offices that drafted by hand and I can tell you that there most certainly was not a set method that everyone followed. There was as much - if not more - variation in methodologies, symbols, lineweights, conventions, hatch patterns, rules... as there is now in CAD. Each time you went to a new firm you had to learn a new set of conventions.
You seem to be assuming that everyone is using AutoCAD. It's hard to say how many firms use things other than AutoCAD - different sources conflict on that though it is at least 25% of all US architecture firms. I can tell you that I haven't worked in an AutoCAD-using firm since the mid 1990s and that there are plenty of firms and architects out there to whom "x-ref" is not relevant.
The AIA's standard for CAD layers is not only inefficient for anyone using software that has layer configurations and/or uses a layers+classes system (i.e. most parametric, 3D-based CAD applications) but it is also inappropriate and cumbersome for many types of projects. A firm that has no consultants for instance will have trouble organizing their projects based on that system. Our firm has different standards for different project types - and I've encountered this in many firms.
CAD standards in firms are usually developed by each firm over a long time in the same way that hand-drawing methods used to be. There is a lot of trial and error involved - mainly because what works for one firm doesn't work for another. Often young people come into a firm and want to "improve" that firm's methods immediately, or change them to the methods of another firm at which they've worked. Usually it is a good idea to thoroughly learn the firm's methods and reasons over the course of several projects before getting involved in any discussion of improvement.
I'd rather train a new employee in our methodology and let there be some slight inefficiency due to that learning curve than change my firm's way of working to accomodate a "national standard."
DRAFTING STANDARDS
There are books and old sets of hand drafted drawings that can be used as examples for how drawing sets should look like graphically. how dimensions should look, how text should be aligned, line weights stc...
How important is it for drawings now to follow these drawing graphic standards since most sets are done in acad?
At most offices I've worked at ..it takes years to develop Cad standards that work for everyone. And when you go to another office you are faced with the same set of delimas...and trying to convince people of one method or another.
Is the a universal CAD standards out there ??? It seems to me a universal cad-graphic standard would put an end to alot of headaches.
Universal CAD Standards - No.
Natonal CAD Standards - Yes.
The customer is king.
Some architects offer a product that is above the norm - and they want their drawing standards to reflect it.
Headaches make the world go round baby.
Headaches prevent babies.
the national standard really does not have graphic standards for drafting a really nice set of documents.
also the national standard does not have a method for x-refs, and where notes, dims, and drawing files are organized.
we need one set of standards that has everything... when people hand drfated there was a set method that everyone followed. we need something like that for CAD
I started out in offices that drafted by hand and I can tell you that there most certainly was not a set method that everyone followed. There was as much - if not more - variation in methodologies, symbols, lineweights, conventions, hatch patterns, rules... as there is now in CAD. Each time you went to a new firm you had to learn a new set of conventions.
You seem to be assuming that everyone is using AutoCAD. It's hard to say how many firms use things other than AutoCAD - different sources conflict on that though it is at least 25% of all US architecture firms. I can tell you that I haven't worked in an AutoCAD-using firm since the mid 1990s and that there are plenty of firms and architects out there to whom "x-ref" is not relevant.
The AIA's standard for CAD layers is not only inefficient for anyone using software that has layer configurations and/or uses a layers+classes system (i.e. most parametric, 3D-based CAD applications) but it is also inappropriate and cumbersome for many types of projects. A firm that has no consultants for instance will have trouble organizing their projects based on that system. Our firm has different standards for different project types - and I've encountered this in many firms.
CAD standards in firms are usually developed by each firm over a long time in the same way that hand-drawing methods used to be. There is a lot of trial and error involved - mainly because what works for one firm doesn't work for another. Often young people come into a firm and want to "improve" that firm's methods immediately, or change them to the methods of another firm at which they've worked. Usually it is a good idea to thoroughly learn the firm's methods and reasons over the course of several projects before getting involved in any discussion of improvement.
I'd rather train a new employee in our methodology and let there be some slight inefficiency due to that learning curve than change my firm's way of working to accomodate a "national standard."
i'd be happy if my office had a standard.
We have standards. Then we throw them out the window cause they just don't apply sometimes.
CAD Monkey Standard v1.0
1. Only draw on the "Zero Layer" with everything set to ByLayer. No more need for MatchProp (MA).
2. Never use Grid, Snap, Origin, Lineweights, Colors, Layer Names, Text Justification, and Common Sense.
3. If this is too complicated, don't ask anyone for help; keep doing #1.
Stevie you are a genius, you have me here laughing my ass off
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.