The Project From Hellâ„¢ has been dumped into my lap, and I'm expected to finish this thing singlehandedly.
Somebody please, please tell me it's possible to have worse AutoCAD hygene than the drawings I'm trying to clean up right now, and issue for CD's in three weeks.
- Entire drawings drawn as if OSNAP didn't exist.
- A tangled web of Xrefs worthy of Shelob, which was blown to pieces when the PM got bored and decided to rename all the drawing files one day.
- Ceiling grids apparently passing through concrete structural columns.
- Freeze layer "A-GLAZ-MULL" and half the drawing disappears.
- All sorts of weird ARX errors that no amount of auditing or purging will cure.
- Lines that are drawn .00001 degrees off
- Almost every block in the drawing exploded
- The remaining blocks drawn with embedded layers that don't conform to any standard in the CAD universe.
- Six layers that are each a variation of "A-ANNO-TEXT", including one called "A-ANN0-TEXT" (can you spot the difference?)
- Each drawing in the project apparently drawn to a different set of layer standards.
- Some walls and doors drawn with regular lines, other walls and doors drawn with Architectural Desktop. Watch the mayhem when they intersect!
- Colors, linetypes, and lineweights other than "ByLayer"
Sounds awful, Living in Gin - bad AutoCAD hygiene is dangerous for all involved. I always practice safe CAD.
I too have often dealt with drawings where you turn off one seemingly innocuous layer and half the drawing disappears - in fact I have to spank my partner for drawing that way all-the-time.
Good luck with it - how large a drawing set is it? A house or a hospital? Sucks either way.
Two floors of a high-rise that are being renovated.
Related question: Are most of the Architectural Desktop "design" features merely a crutch for those too lazy or too incompetent to draft things the proper way within straight AutoCAD? Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this.
Damn dude. I had a similair experience. I ended up re drawing everything and putting in tons of hours [still being payed hourly at that time] - it was the worst. All these euro kids didnt know that a 2x4 was 3.5x1.5 or that plywood came in thicknesses other that 1".
The worst was the fact that all the layers were irrelevant and ACadd 2005 no longer has "layiso" or "layuniso"...
Redraw it and cross your finger.
As for the errors, copy and past into a new template.
There are a group of slobs here who like to use model space as a vast piece of scratch "paper" and sort out the mess via viewports. So of course it falls to me to fix something and I can't find where in the mess of wall sections, xclips, blocks and random studies (most with a mysterious and unlabeled Layer 0 circle drawn around them) any of these details are. It looks like the building exploded in model space. I'm currently hunting for 6" flashing details and have 31 different 8 story wall sections to sort through.
These are the same people who looooove drafting in 1/256", so everything measures out to shite like 1-127/256".
my scary story: (doesn't really compare, but funny) i know a guy who drafts perfectly to the 10th decimal place and EVERYTHING is on the correct layer, just perfect as can be, you don't want to work with those types either. most everything, large portions of sections and plans even is a block with a really specific name (he must spend hours a week just naming the blocks), so there's tons of nested layers that wont turn off, i just ended up exploding them all out of severe frustration, and you can't edit anything 'in place' which made me crash all the time. You can't change design on him, if he draws it it is set in stone. You gonna change window shapes are ya? That'll take 2 days just to rename all the window blocks (30x48_pella_csmt)!
AND THEN he will call you over to his desk if something is wrong that you did then walk you thru how to do it correctly (using his custom macros) and lecture you on how it really screws with him when you do the stuff you do.
chaglag, to find things in model space, put an 'x' across it in paperspace and cs (change layer), then go into model space and find it. I think its perfectly acceptable to do what you describe. Model space IS a vast piece of scratch paper. You don't sound like you design much.
this is a great thread...and Living in Gin, we all feel for you! i think one of the worst Cad issues is working in an office without ANY standards...for three years, I have tried to create standards...fighting the old guard and the young ones who like to make it up as they go along! it can be seriously frustrating.
The good news is that I am on my second project using the same formats...and i think these are the ONLY two consistent projects in the entire office!!!
Actually, Straw, I'm on CAD all day. My annoyance stems from the fact that people don't at least label their model space detritus, leaving the rest of us to wonder what all this mess is when the original drafter inevitably moves to another project. It's an office standard, but it sounds like we're a lot like MickMack's office in that regard. Altho we also have a guy like the one you describe and he's a total nightmare as well.
do you work at som? i had something like that once when i worked there. (the difference is a zero instead of O, by the way.) had one instance where my boss had exploded a dot hatch.
I too use model space as infinite scratch paper, but you do need to be considerate of your coworkers if you know other people will be working on the same drawings. I've had a similar experience where I got to finish the job after the other guy was fired. All the layer problems, nonexistant osnapping, text sizes and styles and fonts all different within the same detail. Some notes in paper space, some in model space. If your ass is now responsible, there's no other choice than to start over.
with VW your life is one big cad nightmare -- i would rather use an etch-a-sketch with only one wheel working but bragging about cad platforms is like bragging about what city you live in, there's someone out there who'll hate on it
I think alot of our AutoCAD nightmares would go away if every office used Revit... If tags and even lines were actually intelligent objects with substance...
but then again, we would probably just be upgrading to a new kind of nightmare in sloppy parametric modeling...
I haven't had the chance to use Revit yet, but I understand we'll be upgrading to it soon. Is it really as good as some people say it is, or is it just a glorified version of ADT?
By the way, if you really want CAD nightmares, try being in an office that uses ARRIS. (*scoff* *spit*)
ADT was just AutoCAD trying to become more like Revit. But the problem is that they are just too far behind...
Revit is actually heading in other more powerful directions now. So I think ADT can only be an immitator as opposed to the innovator. It'll always be playing catch up, one step behind.
but I suspect that the reason autodesk bought up revit and is trying to coopt any technology it can is that this has a potential to eventually make autocad obsolete (eventually)...
funny thing is, even with office standards in place, anyone taking over anyone else’s project will undoubtedly say the same thing, especially if the project is pretty far along. I am a stickler, but with deadlines and changes occurring all the time, it becomes tough to remain perfect.
I would say that if you use paper space as a sketch pad (which I do), at least put the mess into labeled piles…
I just got a tower project that I was to model up. But each plan was like 2000,000 units away from 0,0,0 and it was all angled to true north. Why why why! Your doing a building, a single building. Lets work orthagonally close to 0! If you need your drawing in a site context, you can xref it into THAT drawing for goodness sake. What a hastle. I had to bind a ton of xrefs, xplode everything, drag it all to 0 then rotate it argg. then repeat when they sent me more revised plans. ARRGGGGGG
I worked in an office where there was a guy who exploded just about everything. mtext was always exploded down to single lines, dimensions were often exploded, or worse yet, overridden. he even exploded hatches! what a pain in the ass that was when I had to re-hatch things he had worked on. every little line composing the hatch had to be erased.
Luckily, other than him I haven't encountered many people like that. Most of the problems I've encountered are people who just don't know how to put a good set of cd's together. Details drawn at too large of a scale that could have been drawn smaller or not at all, too much information crammed onto small scale details, information repeated many times on multiple drawings at multiple scales, sloppy and inconsistent dimensioning, lack of logical flow from small to medium to large scales, the list goes on and on...
yeah ochona i'm with you on that. i don't know why firms spend so much time worrying about the consistency of the look of their drawings and so little worrying about the content. at a previous firm they were always having training sessions about lineweights, symbols, layers, and other cad standards (most of which were largely ignored anyway) yet never said a word about the basics of assembling a set of cds. it seems like this is just assumed to be something you'll pick up along the way, but some people just don't.
The latest set of drawings I recived supposed to be able to make a dusin 2D seceions of a round "body" . see the thing was made, it was put there build as foundation for the centerpiece of a huge Opera building --- anyway what I got was measured on site ,to be able to make a 3D model for unfolding the lofts.
Dizzie --- well all the measures was transcribed to a de orientated 2 D CAD drawing 20 different ones, that you have to turn and twist, then place exact then do the next finaly you will get a 3D drawing of 2D sections ,measured after the foundations placed ( tradisional fiddeled profile steel,
Tell me something the ability in denmark's greatest studio. They could not maneage to have 20 sections measured by hand from something allready build, now why would anyone do that ?
Ofcaurse I didn't get any credit, after producing what they thought had to be programmed in germany , Anyway the 3D seem so alian it seem and it is a shame as even the thing that then was build was praised in high tunes, then a craftman would say, is genuine crafts and done with a technike used in the 20' to curve shape plywood sheets.
Well I acturly knew beforehand that even I would produce just what they expected , then when finished it was impossible to reach the architect who supply the digital files. Do this tell anything about the firms use of CAD I don't know, but gee how lame. Me I could do it in a week produce the 3D model to work with ------- tearing down the allready build down, and build a genuine new, by aid of CAD. But the Romans think the world is flat, CAD is 2D and about CAD it is not using it, but keeping it down, while those CAD guy's shuldn't think they are someone" .
True it is pleasing to see the rather primitive 2D sections, that stringvise was placed to bring the center scene room in a wooden cube. I scrapped it all, and produced the rounded wall looking hollow cube , I use it at my homepage ; well it is a complete interiour , that would have blown some life into arts if build, it proberly also would turn out with perfect tone, anyway _this is the reality in dk. ---- just before but in good time before cristmess, you get a job, doing some serious production with a chance to be able to participate, you think there will be a broad cristmess but a week before cristmess you want to turn in your results, proberly get a bit bread ---- the messeage then is that it is impossible to reach the architect no one ever contact and exchouse that the trouble ,even done better than you would expect in germany, was vasted.
Well now I shared a bit inside knowleage but realy I don't think you shuld keep your mouth shut, what's ruining the architecture are, that even the ones that we think shuld be the top, is acturly concrete walls with fill of emty beer bottles.
Anyway I see it like that that the Romans can only blame themself their troubles , they simply don't want to make the cash, the new jobs the exiting splendid new architecture, the one that can protect them at the same time as expanding production in a smart digital way.
For those who wondered about the great 3D rounded interiour model I display at my homepage -- yes this is something that was produced with the data in the measures , my is just what I liked to do, after being offered a job doing exactly what was expecetd , but their creation in CAD the 23 slices ,placed flat on ground have nothing to do, with the sliced model I display ----- this could have been calculated exact ,for cost and everything else ; the ready building assembly for an most exiting design wouldn't you say ;
The AutoCAD nightmare then turn out to be the fact, that no one realy want to use it ,rather do everything as we allway's did , --- shuld this be second to null , the fantastic shining wooden panels ?? could you say and the only ansver must be, that if projecting is building the thing and _then measure it, in slices ,to bring a number od defining slices , but even that early they wouldn't profit much from the 3D model anyway, then what can you do occupied in the develobing of relevant new methods ---
The drawing they expected shuld have produced the unfolded surfaces from the 3D model they thought was innovative works ; I found 4 major foults ,foults that simply had to be re done, befor you could anyway use the actural 3D model .
Still the real nightmare in this contry, are the endless discussion about architectural coding, it seem that on any account, from file sharing to external blocks, everything is one great mess. Anyway check my structure if you know where this Opera was build, you can correspond with what was finaly build there, a wooden shrine someone called it, still not my faviour ,as I ask relevant use of the digital options ,and expect just a littel innovation, with such great building.
i used to work in an office where for some reason a lot
of the drawings would be all over z space...so it made it
impossible to extend/trim/fillet anything...you'd end up
going into each drawing and move everything to the 0- z
plane...
Exactly -----and that is my real concern, that we think we are so advanced, but when it get to the button , things are most often done fiddeling the brave old crafts. Shuld it vorry, maby not the Opera was build and the 3D router was used mainly for supplement, it made some fine broken rounded edges, but innovative no , spetacular yes, but if CAD was used seriously in that project, it was only doing the spetacular renderings. If a 2D drawing show hight it is not a 2D drawing but the 2.5D we expect to be 3D, -------- but if CAD is just used becaurse it is easier to wipe out a wrong line easier than in a paper drawing, then what can you expect of direct link methods.
Realy I don't find it wrong to just use CAD as allway's and before CAD, but how can anyone expect visions to crawl out of that.
Really - am i the only person in the world who thinks changing colors is not bad? Is it not worse to have A-Elev-Red, Elev-ylw, etc? You could always isolate the layer and change it back if needed.
i change colors on certain layers...for instance, Windows...i like the glass and mullion to be darker than the frame lines...but they are all on the window layer...
I guess it really depends what kind of layering system you are using. If it's a very complex system, there are probably individual layers for every piece and part that have preassigned colors. A lof of layering systems do use simple penweights (which in most instances still correspond to different colors) for elevations, sections, and details. I am not against using different colors within the same layer (for instance using one color (heavier penweight) for a door and another (lighter penweight) for it's swing. I'm more in favor of drawing this way than I am of putting everything on different layers (I don't see any reason to put doors one one layer and swings on another, for instance). Overly complex layering systems seem to just discourage users from putting things on the correct layers.
and, for me, per's comment is dead on: "The AutoCAD nightmare then turns out to be [due to] the fact that no one really wants to use it, rather do everything as we always did."
The big problem I have with changing colors is that when you Xref that file into another drawing as a background to be plotted in a halftone color, the objects with colors other than "ByLayer" won't change to the halftone color with the rest of the Xref.
Example: I need to Xref MickMack's floorplan into a new drawing that will become a reflected ceiling plan. I want his entire drawing to plot at halftone so that my RCP information will show up clearly. But when I change all the Xref's layers to color 253 (my usual halftone color), his windows won't change. That's when I begin having fantasies about beating MickMack with a large stick.
For windows, you should ideally have at least three layers according to AIA standards:
A-GLAZ for the actual glass. (medium lineweight)
A-GLAZ-SILL for the sill. (light lineweight)
A-GLAZ-MULL for the mullions. (heavy lineweight)
Sometime I'll change the linetype on an object to something other than "ByLayer", but that causes far less problems than changing the color.
Good point - Now I think about it I seem to only change colors on elev's interior or exterior. Then theres always that circular xref'r lurking in the office not switching to overlay, when I find you I'm going to beat you with the silly stick you hear?
supposedly plotting with .stb files instead of .ctb files allows you more flexibility is assigning penweights than just object color; this is supposed to be a solution to the 'screening an xref' problem.
you guys have covered the gamut of bad CAD standards but even with CAD standards followed, i've always placed a readme.txt file at the project folder root that gives an overview of how this particular project was setup technically.
it may slowly become obvious but only after you open every sheet file and every xref do you start to see how the project files were laid out and get your head around it.
and when you do come back to an old project after years, you may have developed a newer way/tools to do things and you will forget that you used an xref of the 1st floor plan with only a permiter area calc. layer visible to make your key plan and your footprint on the site plan. but now how did you make those key plan match lines and lables on all sheets identical? was that another little xref? lol
so, not having good notes annoys me most. like code, CAD needs good documentation notes even with perfect standards.
MM, only lack of experience would make someone think that spending 1 or 2 hours of non-billable time doing documentation for an entire project would have a poor return on investment.
there isn't one schmoe on this site with daily post counts like yours that doesn't waste that much time each day on this forum while billing someone, guaranteed.
Sep 30, 05 12:12 am ·
·
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.
AutoCAD nightmares
The Project From Hellâ„¢ has been dumped into my lap, and I'm expected to finish this thing singlehandedly.
Somebody please, please tell me it's possible to have worse AutoCAD hygene than the drawings I'm trying to clean up right now, and issue for CD's in three weeks.
- Entire drawings drawn as if OSNAP didn't exist.
- A tangled web of Xrefs worthy of Shelob, which was blown to pieces when the PM got bored and decided to rename all the drawing files one day.
- Ceiling grids apparently passing through concrete structural columns.
- Freeze layer "A-GLAZ-MULL" and half the drawing disappears.
- All sorts of weird ARX errors that no amount of auditing or purging will cure.
- Lines that are drawn .00001 degrees off
- Almost every block in the drawing exploded
- The remaining blocks drawn with embedded layers that don't conform to any standard in the CAD universe.
- Six layers that are each a variation of "A-ANNO-TEXT", including one called "A-ANN0-TEXT" (can you spot the difference?)
- Each drawing in the project apparently drawn to a different set of layer standards.
- Some walls and doors drawn with regular lines, other walls and doors drawn with Architectural Desktop. Watch the mayhem when they intersect!
- Colors, linetypes, and lineweights other than "ByLayer"
And it's not even 9:30 AM yet.
What are some of your AutoCAD horror stories?
ever get attacked by robot ninjas?
At this point, that would be a blessing.
Sounds awful, Living in Gin - bad AutoCAD hygiene is dangerous for all involved. I always practice safe CAD.
I too have often dealt with drawings where you turn off one seemingly innocuous layer and half the drawing disappears - in fact I have to spank my partner for drawing that way all-the-time.
Good luck with it - how large a drawing set is it? A house or a hospital? Sucks either way.
Two floors of a high-rise that are being renovated.
Related question: Are most of the Architectural Desktop "design" features merely a crutch for those too lazy or too incompetent to draft things the proper way within straight AutoCAD? Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this.
You have been killed by the machine...
Damn dude. I had a similair experience. I ended up re drawing everything and putting in tons of hours [still being payed hourly at that time] - it was the worst. All these euro kids didnt know that a 2x4 was 3.5x1.5 or that plywood came in thicknesses other that 1".
The worst was the fact that all the layers were irrelevant and ACadd 2005 no longer has "layiso" or "layuniso"...
Redraw it and cross your finger.
As for the errors, copy and past into a new template.
Or, sharpen your 4h, HB and 1H leads.?!?!?!?!
what a nightmare! sorry! sometimes its best to start over. x-ref the drawings and grey them out, then draw over the top.
There are a group of slobs here who like to use model space as a vast piece of scratch "paper" and sort out the mess via viewports. So of course it falls to me to fix something and I can't find where in the mess of wall sections, xclips, blocks and random studies (most with a mysterious and unlabeled Layer 0 circle drawn around them) any of these details are. It looks like the building exploded in model space. I'm currently hunting for 6" flashing details and have 31 different 8 story wall sections to sort through.
These are the same people who looooove drafting in 1/256", so everything measures out to shite like 1-127/256".
my scary story: (doesn't really compare, but funny) i know a guy who drafts perfectly to the 10th decimal place and EVERYTHING is on the correct layer, just perfect as can be, you don't want to work with those types either. most everything, large portions of sections and plans even is a block with a really specific name (he must spend hours a week just naming the blocks), so there's tons of nested layers that wont turn off, i just ended up exploding them all out of severe frustration, and you can't edit anything 'in place' which made me crash all the time. You can't change design on him, if he draws it it is set in stone. You gonna change window shapes are ya? That'll take 2 days just to rename all the window blocks (30x48_pella_csmt)!
AND THEN he will call you over to his desk if something is wrong that you did then walk you thru how to do it correctly (using his custom macros) and lecture you on how it really screws with him when you do the stuff you do.
chaglag, to find things in model space, put an 'x' across it in paperspace and cs (change layer), then go into model space and find it. I think its perfectly acceptable to do what you describe. Model space IS a vast piece of scratch paper. You don't sound like you design much.
this is a great thread...and Living in Gin, we all feel for you! i think one of the worst Cad issues is working in an office without ANY standards...for three years, I have tried to create standards...fighting the old guard and the young ones who like to make it up as they go along! it can be seriously frustrating.
The good news is that I am on my second project using the same formats...and i think these are the ONLY two consistent projects in the entire office!!!
sending good Cad karma your way, Gin!
cs means "change space", not "change layer", sorry.
I use our CAD manual to educate the ignorant by rolling tightly and flaying the document at their heads. Still doesn't work though.
LIG - Please say your not using LT - that would be a real bitch without the lisp commands.
I like to to change colors to other than by layer, sorry.
EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, Straw, I'm on CAD all day. My annoyance stems from the fact that people don't at least label their model space detritus, leaving the rest of us to wonder what all this mess is when the original drafter inevitably moves to another project. It's an office standard, but it sounds like we're a lot like MickMack's office in that regard. Altho we also have a guy like the one you describe and he's a total nightmare as well.
do you work at som? i had something like that once when i worked there. (the difference is a zero instead of O, by the way.) had one instance where my boss had exploded a dot hatch.
I too use model space as infinite scratch paper, but you do need to be considerate of your coworkers if you know other people will be working on the same drawings. I've had a similar experience where I got to finish the job after the other guy was fired. All the layer problems, nonexistant osnapping, text sizes and styles and fonts all different within the same detail. Some notes in paper space, some in model space. If your ass is now responsible, there's no other choice than to start over.
I use Vectorworks
with VW your life is one big cad nightmare -- i would rather use an etch-a-sketch with only one wheel working but bragging about cad platforms is like bragging about what city you live in, there's someone out there who'll hate on it
I think alot of our AutoCAD nightmares would go away if every office used Revit... If tags and even lines were actually intelligent objects with substance...
but then again, we would probably just be upgrading to a new kind of nightmare in sloppy parametric modeling...
I haven't had the chance to use Revit yet, but I understand we'll be upgrading to it soon. Is it really as good as some people say it is, or is it just a glorified version of ADT?
By the way, if you really want CAD nightmares, try being in an office that uses ARRIS. (*scoff* *spit*)
ADT was just AutoCAD trying to become more like Revit. But the problem is that they are just too far behind...
Revit is actually heading in other more powerful directions now. So I think ADT can only be an immitator as opposed to the innovator. It'll always be playing catch up, one step behind.
but I suspect that the reason autodesk bought up revit and is trying to coopt any technology it can is that this has a potential to eventually make autocad obsolete (eventually)...
funny thing is, even with office standards in place, anyone taking over anyone else’s project will undoubtedly say the same thing, especially if the project is pretty far along. I am a stickler, but with deadlines and changes occurring all the time, it becomes tough to remain perfect.
I would say that if you use paper space as a sketch pad (which I do), at least put the mess into labeled piles…
I just got a tower project that I was to model up. But each plan was like 2000,000 units away from 0,0,0 and it was all angled to true north. Why why why! Your doing a building, a single building. Lets work orthagonally close to 0! If you need your drawing in a site context, you can xref it into THAT drawing for goodness sake. What a hastle. I had to bind a ton of xrefs, xplode everything, drag it all to 0 then rotate it argg. then repeat when they sent me more revised plans. ARRGGGGGG
I worked in an office where there was a guy who exploded just about everything. mtext was always exploded down to single lines, dimensions were often exploded, or worse yet, overridden. he even exploded hatches! what a pain in the ass that was when I had to re-hatch things he had worked on. every little line composing the hatch had to be erased.
Luckily, other than him I haven't encountered many people like that. Most of the problems I've encountered are people who just don't know how to put a good set of cd's together. Details drawn at too large of a scale that could have been drawn smaller or not at all, too much information crammed onto small scale details, information repeated many times on multiple drawings at multiple scales, sloppy and inconsistent dimensioning, lack of logical flow from small to medium to large scales, the list goes on and on...
trudat b4a. and many upper-mgmt people i have experienced care more about how pretty the drawings are than what they say
we have long discussions about line weights but roof details just get slapped on without debate
Entupd
yeah ochona i'm with you on that. i don't know why firms spend so much time worrying about the consistency of the look of their drawings and so little worrying about the content. at a previous firm they were always having training sessions about lineweights, symbols, layers, and other cad standards (most of which were largely ignored anyway) yet never said a word about the basics of assembling a set of cds. it seems like this is just assumed to be something you'll pick up along the way, but some people just don't.
The latest set of drawings I recived supposed to be able to make a dusin 2D seceions of a round "body" . see the thing was made, it was put there build as foundation for the centerpiece of a huge Opera building --- anyway what I got was measured on site ,to be able to make a 3D model for unfolding the lofts.
Dizzie --- well all the measures was transcribed to a de orientated 2 D CAD drawing 20 different ones, that you have to turn and twist, then place exact then do the next finaly you will get a 3D drawing of 2D sections ,measured after the foundations placed ( tradisional fiddeled profile steel,
Tell me something the ability in denmark's greatest studio. They could not maneage to have 20 sections measured by hand from something allready build, now why would anyone do that ?
Ofcaurse I didn't get any credit, after producing what they thought had to be programmed in germany , Anyway the 3D seem so alian it seem and it is a shame as even the thing that then was build was praised in high tunes, then a craftman would say, is genuine crafts and done with a technike used in the 20' to curve shape plywood sheets.
Well I acturly knew beforehand that even I would produce just what they expected , then when finished it was impossible to reach the architect who supply the digital files. Do this tell anything about the firms use of CAD I don't know, but gee how lame. Me I could do it in a week produce the 3D model to work with ------- tearing down the allready build down, and build a genuine new, by aid of CAD. But the Romans think the world is flat, CAD is 2D and about CAD it is not using it, but keeping it down, while those CAD guy's shuldn't think they are someone" .
True it is pleasing to see the rather primitive 2D sections, that stringvise was placed to bring the center scene room in a wooden cube. I scrapped it all, and produced the rounded wall looking hollow cube , I use it at my homepage ; well it is a complete interiour , that would have blown some life into arts if build, it proberly also would turn out with perfect tone, anyway _this is the reality in dk. ---- just before but in good time before cristmess, you get a job, doing some serious production with a chance to be able to participate, you think there will be a broad cristmess but a week before cristmess you want to turn in your results, proberly get a bit bread ---- the messeage then is that it is impossible to reach the architect no one ever contact and exchouse that the trouble ,even done better than you would expect in germany, was vasted.
Well now I shared a bit inside knowleage but realy I don't think you shuld keep your mouth shut, what's ruining the architecture are, that even the ones that we think shuld be the top, is acturly concrete walls with fill of emty beer bottles.
Anyway I see it like that that the Romans can only blame themself their troubles , they simply don't want to make the cash, the new jobs the exiting splendid new architecture, the one that can protect them at the same time as expanding production in a smart digital way.
We use VW as well, But I couldnt imagine using VW for large commercial projects.
For those who wondered about the great 3D rounded interiour model I display at my homepage -- yes this is something that was produced with the data in the measures , my is just what I liked to do, after being offered a job doing exactly what was expecetd , but their creation in CAD the 23 slices ,placed flat on ground have nothing to do, with the sliced model I display ----- this could have been calculated exact ,for cost and everything else ; the ready building assembly for an most exiting design wouldn't you say ;
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
Started on that one cristmess evening.
The AutoCAD nightmare then turn out to be the fact, that no one realy want to use it ,rather do everything as we allway's did , --- shuld this be second to null , the fantastic shining wooden panels ?? could you say and the only ansver must be, that if projecting is building the thing and _then measure it, in slices ,to bring a number od defining slices , but even that early they wouldn't profit much from the 3D model anyway, then what can you do occupied in the develobing of relevant new methods ---
The drawing they expected shuld have produced the unfolded surfaces from the 3D model they thought was innovative works ; I found 4 major foults ,foults that simply had to be re done, befor you could anyway use the actural 3D model .
Still the real nightmare in this contry, are the endless discussion about architectural coding, it seem that on any account, from file sharing to external blocks, everything is one great mess. Anyway check my structure if you know where this Opera was build, you can correspond with what was finaly build there, a wooden shrine someone called it, still not my faviour ,as I ask relevant use of the digital options ,and expect just a littel innovation, with such great building.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
i used to work in an office where for some reason a lot
of the drawings would be all over z space...so it made it
impossible to extend/trim/fillet anything...you'd end up
going into each drawing and move everything to the 0- z
plane...
these were supposed to be 2-d drawings btw
Exactly -----and that is my real concern, that we think we are so advanced, but when it get to the button , things are most often done fiddeling the brave old crafts. Shuld it vorry, maby not the Opera was build and the 3D router was used mainly for supplement, it made some fine broken rounded edges, but innovative no , spetacular yes, but if CAD was used seriously in that project, it was only doing the spetacular renderings. If a 2D drawing show hight it is not a 2D drawing but the 2.5D we expect to be 3D, -------- but if CAD is just used becaurse it is easier to wipe out a wrong line easier than in a paper drawing, then what can you expect of direct link methods.
Realy I don't find it wrong to just use CAD as allway's and before CAD, but how can anyone expect visions to crawl out of that.
I've seen sloppy parametric nightmares. They're no joke.
Really - am i the only person in the world who thinks changing colors is not bad? Is it not worse to have A-Elev-Red, Elev-ylw, etc? You could always isolate the layer and change it back if needed.
i change colors on certain layers...for instance, Windows...i like the glass and mullion to be darker than the frame lines...but they are all on the window layer...
I guess it really depends what kind of layering system you are using. If it's a very complex system, there are probably individual layers for every piece and part that have preassigned colors. A lof of layering systems do use simple penweights (which in most instances still correspond to different colors) for elevations, sections, and details. I am not against using different colors within the same layer (for instance using one color (heavier penweight) for a door and another (lighter penweight) for it's swing. I'm more in favor of drawing this way than I am of putting everything on different layers (I don't see any reason to put doors one one layer and swings on another, for instance). Overly complex layering systems seem to just discourage users from putting things on the correct layers.
i'm probably guilty of most of the above.
and, for me, per's comment is dead on: "The AutoCAD nightmare then turns out to be [due to] the fact that no one really wants to use it, rather do everything as we always did."
GUILTY!
The big problem I have with changing colors is that when you Xref that file into another drawing as a background to be plotted in a halftone color, the objects with colors other than "ByLayer" won't change to the halftone color with the rest of the Xref.
Example: I need to Xref MickMack's floorplan into a new drawing that will become a reflected ceiling plan. I want his entire drawing to plot at halftone so that my RCP information will show up clearly. But when I change all the Xref's layers to color 253 (my usual halftone color), his windows won't change. That's when I begin having fantasies about beating MickMack with a large stick.
For windows, you should ideally have at least three layers according to AIA standards:
A-GLAZ for the actual glass. (medium lineweight)
A-GLAZ-SILL for the sill. (light lineweight)
A-GLAZ-MULL for the mullions. (heavy lineweight)
Sometime I'll change the linetype on an object to something other than "ByLayer", but that causes far less problems than changing the color.
Good point - Now I think about it I seem to only change colors on elev's interior or exterior. Then theres always that circular xref'r lurking in the office not switching to overlay, when I find you I'm going to beat you with the silly stick you hear?
Thanks for the lt tip.
supposedly plotting with .stb files instead of .ctb files allows you more flexibility is assigning penweights than just object color; this is supposed to be a solution to the 'screening an xref' problem.
you guys have covered the gamut of bad CAD standards but even with CAD standards followed, i've always placed a readme.txt file at the project folder root that gives an overview of how this particular project was setup technically.
it may slowly become obvious but only after you open every sheet file and every xref do you start to see how the project files were laid out and get your head around it.
and when you do come back to an old project after years, you may have developed a newer way/tools to do things and you will forget that you used an xref of the 1st floor plan with only a permiter area calc. layer visible to make your key plan and your footprint on the site plan. but now how did you make those key plan match lines and lables on all sheets identical? was that another little xref? lol
so, not having good notes annoys me most. like code, CAD needs good documentation notes even with perfect standards.
Wow, one more way to add to the non-billable time.
CAD ain't been the same since I lost my laptop:
MM, only lack of experience would make someone think that spending 1 or 2 hours of non-billable time doing documentation for an entire project would have a poor return on investment.
there isn't one schmoe on this site with daily post counts like yours that doesn't waste that much time each day on this forum while billing someone, guaranteed.
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.