For offices still using 2-D drafting this question is for you. Do you favor a strict graphic cad standard where every procedure and template is laid out so theres almost machine like adherence to the office conventions? Or do you promote a looser do what you must as long as it works ( emphasize works, not think it works) approach where people draw to the intent?
my office is very loose with the standards... we have sets of layers to be used with various scales and drawing types but they are very rarely used. Generally, every project has its own layer names with differing line weights and types... just depends on the graphic quality whoever is in charge of that particular set of drawings is after. We rarely make drawings beyond DD so that factors into why we can still produce high quality drawings this way i think.
I personally think it works fine, naming layers is generally pretty intuitive... looking at a detail, very few people will be confused when they see A-SECT-STEEL or something like that...or an A-PART-WALLSTHATYOUMIGHTUSETOENCLOSEANOFFICESOMETIMES
strict simple layer and linewieght standards that can be expanded upon if need be... layer standards are nice for conversion to many different layering standards by different clients, or between programs...
but no one is a nazi...
also, drawing organization, or other drawing conventions vary immensely, what the PA says goes basically
I'm a fan of fairly strict standards for "standard" layers. Walls, doors, windows...etc. In an office where we work on drawings started by other people quite a bit, having a standard makes things go a lot smoother. It also helps when there are a lot of people working on a set.
I agree with the expandable layering standards philosophy myself. And like Lletdown, its hard not to understand what A-Glaz-Sil means.
Drafting symbols are another one - how many offices use an office standard for tags and graphics but somehow renegade symbols still show up but no one claims responsibility/
are you kidding? unless you're bob and his whiz bang CAD machine, an office can't function without very well developed CAD standards. this will probably rub some people the wrong way, but for me, it's the first sign of a poorly run office.
we have renegade symbols... mostly cause graphic standards arent the exact same in the us vs germany vs china etc... so someone will grab a tag from a german job and the chinese will be like WTF! and then we'll use a chinese tag for an american job and the americans are like WTF! bust me my GAT! and its just mayhem...
i think the first sign of a poorly run office is if they are in business... poorly run offices tend to not be in business as much as not poorly run offices. my grandfather imparted me with one lesson before he left for his space command mission... he said, being in business means your doing the business, not being in business means someone else is doing your business... it still rings true today
My name is General Al Haig and I'm in control here in my office. My standards will be followed to the letter, my letter. Anything that can be standardized must and will be standardized. I will become an FAIA even if I die in the righteous cause of this effort.
I set a bunch of standards and saved them into the template file on the server. Everyone is supposed to use them but so far I'm the only one. Go figure. Architects are difficult that way, I even can't get the technicians to use it either.
depends on the size of the projects and the office. standards can be a waste of time for the small stuff but i couldn't imagine trying to tackle something like a skyscraper without some type of system in place.
I work in a small office and there are project were everyone works in the file. So there may be 5-8 people modifying the drawing. We are currently updating/revising our standards to a specific method because it has become such a problem. As usual, I got dragged into being in charge of this. The joke in the office is that I will either work on it between 2-4am or will freeze time.
i almost stopped reading at the first sentence because we're not STRICTLY 2d, but some sort of weird mix. we're not even on standard software, running autocads 12, 14, 2000, 2005LT and revit for production. consequently we have very loose standards based on what different machines can do reasonably and efficiently (i.e., without too much monkeying around, converting, etc). we have been growing quickly and simply haven't been able to have the software catch up.
we are, however, about to have autocad 08/revit at every seat, so things will be changing somewhat after that.
I was refering to 2-d for construction/permit docs primarily Stven but I guess the heart of the question is this;
Is it better to have compotent capable draftspeople whith loose standards that can be altered and refined as draftsmen wish or take away draftsmen perogative concept from staff and demand adherance?
what % consistent? Ive noticed some people just pass stuff seamlessly in my office whith a very loose standard but beautifully drawn details and production docs and then theres others who need everything spelled out for them very rigidly so I just wonder if draftsmen perogative, a rather old concept, is still relavent. BIM standards will obliterate this concept since its loaded into the structure of objects-
any bim people got ideas/ stories about how bim changed there standards and policing of standards?
Hasn't anyone here ever had to work on a GSA project? They mandate very strict CAD standards and I think they're requiring BIM for all projects in the near future...
I hate having to work on drawings where notes and 50% of the walls are on layer 1, some are one A-Wall-Chris because Chris drew them, etc. Not using cad standards is just not being professional. We should all use the National Cad Standards. Then we can spend more time designing and less time fixing lineweights.
I'm using AutoCAD Architecture 2008, so most objects get put on the right layer automatically. So, policing layer standards is not a big deal now. The Project Navigator is great for keeping the project structure under control. To get the most out of ACA and the PN, you have to have strictly enforced standards about where to draw things (Element, Construct, View, Sheet). Our projects are mostly 8 to 14 story apartment buildings and we have a maximum of three people working on a project at any time.
our office has been talkin about movin to revit for almost two years now. right now we use 2004, which is how many versions behind? my last job we used 2000, i m always in a technological ghetto with this shit. if my job dried up tomorrow i'd prolly be sol.
Construction documents are very abstract drawings. They are a language a means of communication. In order to communicate there needs to to be an agreed upon set of conventions: Construction documents are by their very nature conventional. Having a set of standards in my opinion is fundamental to putting togeather as set of CD's: Thick lines for wall cuts, thinner ones for patterns etc. There are a set of rules inherent to it, identifcation of those rules and adhernce to them actually facilitates drawing a set, it's not limiting.
If you don't have a standard someone makes it up as they go. They're re-inventing the wheel everytime which I think in the end is more time consuming ans screws things up.
Standsards can be expandable and customizable and may need to be different for differnt types and sizes of projects but they need to be there. Simple things like Xrefing using relative paths, and layer names and linetypes are really easy to impliment and cause major headaches if they're done wrong.
I had to take over a CD set once that some else started... I went to make and RCP from the plan by xrefing the plan into the sheet file... turned off the doors and all my walls dissapeared because they were on the door layer. So I had to go through and move the walls to the door layer. It's really easy to have a wall layer and draw on that layer. Adhernce to those standards actually makes drawing nice attractive drawings mindless and it facilitates putting togeahter a fully coordinated set from as few of drawigns as possible.
I've not worked on GSA projects but the above mentioned project was a govt. jobs and they have the same standards and it was a real pain to go through and rename every layer and move every piece of information to the right layer and redo all the xref's and rename every file and reposition every drawing so it's base was 0,0 and re-xref every drawign into 0,0.... all of these things take more time to do it the way the person before me did... if they'd used the standards they'd have saved thier time as well as mine.
It's what we do for a living (draw pictures of buildings) I think it's reasonable to spend some time learning how to do it. Before CAD people spent all year in class learning how to letter properly. Now we're expected to learn everything on our own through osmosis and it's supposed to be good enough.
AutoCAD is not a medium for individual expression. CAD standards are critical.
One of the hardest things in our office is hiring and rewarding people that are adventurous and want to break the rules, and then trying to get them to acknowledge gravity, building codes, and CAD standards.
Since I am here on a sunday, printing and proofing again I am about ready to get high-school-nun with a steel ruler on peoples' knuckles tomorrow morning. No drawing standards = uncomprehensible drawings = fu¢'d up mess.
You want to get creative - try writing novels or haikus or something
structure is hairline
there's two-hundred layers
but none is wall-struct
xref blahblah 200layers blahblah dimstyles blahblah comform to the standards blahblah. lay down the law to teh stupid interns blahblah ...hey!, what are you guys going to do when you go REVIT and have all this free time again.
"One of the hardest things in our office is hiring and rewarding people that are adventurous and want to break the rules, and then trying to get them to acknowledge gravity, building codes, and CAD standards."
Well --- reson are that CAD standards are 2D paper drawing rules made into 2D CAD. The fight about this been going on for decades and who don't conform will be the looser.
Maybe this is easier to understand when you realise the dizzie talks about how to go to the "next step" 3D, As while this is attacked as how you try to conform 2D CAD into just what was here before CAD, then 3D realy are a problem but, this is becaurse 3D is a complete other world than 2D, nothing from 2D realy has any relevance in 3D and 3D, sadly for the rule making community who want to tigh all creativity into line types and layer names, this is simply impossible ; that's why you can read so much nonsense about 3D.
3D will become near the 2D way of thinking when pople realise that 3D is about manufactoring and allowing the computer to calculate the various items to put together to make a building structure --- but these informations are rather about data to run the laser cutter, or where a particular frame are to be placed and what fittings near that building part , has to be manufactored at the same tme. And these are posts that do not fit well with the rule making of 2D CAD. It simply are another world.
Yeah, we have standards, but half the people & projects in our office are still converting from some old system to national cadd standards. PLUS every year we update to the new AutoCad Architecture / ADT version, SOMETHING always changes, usually many things. Now guys on the other side of the office are making "Smart Blocks" to replace old cabinet type blocks, (not to mention half the office uses STB and the other half uses CTB.) More bullshit to learn how to use, and I GUARANTEE they will STILL REQUIRE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EFFORT because you can't incorporate attributes with fields into them. PILE OF SHIT.
One thing I guess I assumed was layering was basicly standard - I mean if someone draws walls on the door layer, no amount of standards can help that person. I find overly rigid standards to burdensome. Yes - good layer adhereance is critical but let dictating things like "all jobs must go form 1/8" plans to 1/4" plan details and creating mountains of paper sets seems absurd, let the draftsman be the controler of the telling of the story for the set. That is if you have drafstpeople with brains and experiance I guess. It is after all, an art.
I should note - my personal pref in sheet setup is draw details, even on plans, near where theyre reference much like old fashioned drawings. It shows an understanding of how the building gets put together and sequenced. It works even for large projects. I guess I just enjoy reading old early 2oth c. prints and their craftsmenship of how theyre assembeled as sheet sets.
CAD Standards; Hot or Not?
For offices still using 2-D drafting this question is for you. Do you favor a strict graphic cad standard where every procedure and template is laid out so theres almost machine like adherence to the office conventions? Or do you promote a looser do what you must as long as it works ( emphasize works, not think it works) approach where people draw to the intent?
my office is very loose with the standards... we have sets of layers to be used with various scales and drawing types but they are very rarely used. Generally, every project has its own layer names with differing line weights and types... just depends on the graphic quality whoever is in charge of that particular set of drawings is after. We rarely make drawings beyond DD so that factors into why we can still produce high quality drawings this way i think.
I personally think it works fine, naming layers is generally pretty intuitive... looking at a detail, very few people will be confused when they see A-SECT-STEEL or something like that...or an A-PART-WALLSTHATYOUMIGHTUSETOENCLOSEANOFFICESOMETIMES
strict simple layer and linewieght standards that can be expanded upon if need be... layer standards are nice for conversion to many different layering standards by different clients, or between programs...
but no one is a nazi...
also, drawing organization, or other drawing conventions vary immensely, what the PA says goes basically
I'm a fan of fairly strict standards for "standard" layers. Walls, doors, windows...etc. In an office where we work on drawings started by other people quite a bit, having a standard makes things go a lot smoother. It also helps when there are a lot of people working on a set.
strict and militant adherence is the only way to go.
I agree with the expandable layering standards philosophy myself. And like Lletdown, its hard not to understand what A-Glaz-Sil means.
Drafting symbols are another one - how many offices use an office standard for tags and graphics but somehow renegade symbols still show up but no one claims responsibility/
are you kidding? unless you're bob and his whiz bang CAD machine, an office can't function without very well developed CAD standards. this will probably rub some people the wrong way, but for me, it's the first sign of a poorly run office.
we have renegade symbols... mostly cause graphic standards arent the exact same in the us vs germany vs china etc... so someone will grab a tag from a german job and the chinese will be like WTF! and then we'll use a chinese tag for an american job and the americans are like WTF! bust me my GAT! and its just mayhem...
i think the first sign of a poorly run office is if they are in business... poorly run offices tend to not be in business as much as not poorly run offices. my grandfather imparted me with one lesson before he left for his space command mission... he said, being in business means your doing the business, not being in business means someone else is doing your business... it still rings true today
My name is General Al Haig and I'm in control here in my office. My standards will be followed to the letter, my letter. Anything that can be standardized must and will be standardized. I will become an FAIA even if I die in the righteous cause of this effort.
cf
i should mention that my grandfather was designated for his space command mission by the AIA... you might appreciate that level of commitment
as my grandfather Albert Speer.
I set a bunch of standards and saved them into the template file on the server. Everyone is supposed to use them but so far I'm the only one. Go figure. Architects are difficult that way, I even can't get the technicians to use it either.
depends on the size of the projects and the office. standards can be a waste of time for the small stuff but i couldn't imagine trying to tackle something like a skyscraper without some type of system in place.
we have our own standard and standards from most every client
as long as it looks nice when it prints it's all good
Standards=Coherence=Communication=Portability=Profit.
I work in a small office and there are project were everyone works in the file. So there may be 5-8 people modifying the drawing. We are currently updating/revising our standards to a specific method because it has become such a problem. As usual, I got dragged into being in charge of this. The joke in the office is that I will either work on it between 2-4am or will freeze time.
i almost stopped reading at the first sentence because we're not STRICTLY 2d, but some sort of weird mix. we're not even on standard software, running autocads 12, 14, 2000, 2005LT and revit for production. consequently we have very loose standards based on what different machines can do reasonably and efficiently (i.e., without too much monkeying around, converting, etc). we have been growing quickly and simply haven't been able to have the software catch up.
we are, however, about to have autocad 08/revit at every seat, so things will be changing somewhat after that.
What was with that blue screen? also, It is funny to think you cared about coordinates back then.
I was refering to 2-d for construction/permit docs primarily Stven but I guess the heart of the question is this;
Is it better to have compotent capable draftspeople whith loose standards that can be altered and refined as draftsmen wish or take away draftsmen perogative concept from staff and demand adherance?
It more profitable for the office to have draftsmen with no heads.
i say no ep because one never knows when a job may shift hands due to turnover, maternity leave, etc...its good to be consistent.
what % consistent? Ive noticed some people just pass stuff seamlessly in my office whith a very loose standard but beautifully drawn details and production docs and then theres others who need everything spelled out for them very rigidly so I just wonder if draftsmen perogative, a rather old concept, is still relavent. BIM standards will obliterate this concept since its loaded into the structure of objects-
any bim people got ideas/ stories about how bim changed there standards and policing of standards?
well i've been handed and have handed off some accidents waiting to happen.
Hasn't anyone here ever had to work on a GSA project? They mandate very strict CAD standards and I think they're requiring BIM for all projects in the near future...
Government Cheese
I hate having to work on drawings where notes and 50% of the walls are on layer 1, some are one A-Wall-Chris because Chris drew them, etc. Not using cad standards is just not being professional. We should all use the National Cad Standards. Then we can spend more time designing and less time fixing lineweights.
I'm using AutoCAD Architecture 2008, so most objects get put on the right layer automatically. So, policing layer standards is not a big deal now. The Project Navigator is great for keeping the project structure under control. To get the most out of ACA and the PN, you have to have strictly enforced standards about where to draw things (Element, Construct, View, Sheet). Our projects are mostly 8 to 14 story apartment buildings and we have a maximum of three people working on a project at any time.
move to Revit and your problems melt away.
our office has been talkin about movin to revit for almost two years now. right now we use 2004, which is how many versions behind? my last job we used 2000, i m always in a technological ghetto with this shit. if my job dried up tomorrow i'd prolly be sol.
Construction documents are very abstract drawings. They are a language a means of communication. In order to communicate there needs to to be an agreed upon set of conventions: Construction documents are by their very nature conventional. Having a set of standards in my opinion is fundamental to putting togeather as set of CD's: Thick lines for wall cuts, thinner ones for patterns etc. There are a set of rules inherent to it, identifcation of those rules and adhernce to them actually facilitates drawing a set, it's not limiting.
If you don't have a standard someone makes it up as they go. They're re-inventing the wheel everytime which I think in the end is more time consuming ans screws things up.
Standsards can be expandable and customizable and may need to be different for differnt types and sizes of projects but they need to be there. Simple things like Xrefing using relative paths, and layer names and linetypes are really easy to impliment and cause major headaches if they're done wrong.
I had to take over a CD set once that some else started... I went to make and RCP from the plan by xrefing the plan into the sheet file... turned off the doors and all my walls dissapeared because they were on the door layer. So I had to go through and move the walls to the door layer. It's really easy to have a wall layer and draw on that layer. Adhernce to those standards actually makes drawing nice attractive drawings mindless and it facilitates putting togeahter a fully coordinated set from as few of drawigns as possible.
I've not worked on GSA projects but the above mentioned project was a govt. jobs and they have the same standards and it was a real pain to go through and rename every layer and move every piece of information to the right layer and redo all the xref's and rename every file and reposition every drawing so it's base was 0,0 and re-xref every drawign into 0,0.... all of these things take more time to do it the way the person before me did... if they'd used the standards they'd have saved thier time as well as mine.
It's what we do for a living (draw pictures of buildings) I think it's reasonable to spend some time learning how to do it. Before CAD people spent all year in class learning how to letter properly. Now we're expected to learn everything on our own through osmosis and it's supposed to be good enough.
So yes CAD standards are HOT!
AutoCAD is not a medium for individual expression. CAD standards are critical.
One of the hardest things in our office is hiring and rewarding people that are adventurous and want to break the rules, and then trying to get them to acknowledge gravity, building codes, and CAD standards.
Since I am here on a sunday, printing and proofing again I am about ready to get high-school-nun with a steel ruler on peoples' knuckles tomorrow morning. No drawing standards = uncomprehensible drawings = fu¢'d up mess.
You want to get creative - try writing novels or haikus or something
structure is hairline
there's two-hundred layers
but none is wall-struct
xref blahblah 200layers blahblah dimstyles blahblah comform to the standards blahblah. lay down the law to teh stupid interns blahblah ...hey!, what are you guys going to do when you go REVIT and have all this free time again.
blablah
Janosh ;
"One of the hardest things in our office is hiring and rewarding people that are adventurous and want to break the rules, and then trying to get them to acknowledge gravity, building codes, and CAD standards."
Well --- reson are that CAD standards are 2D paper drawing rules made into 2D CAD. The fight about this been going on for decades and who don't conform will be the looser.
Maybe this is easier to understand when you realise the dizzie talks about how to go to the "next step" 3D, As while this is attacked as how you try to conform 2D CAD into just what was here before CAD, then 3D realy are a problem but, this is becaurse 3D is a complete other world than 2D, nothing from 2D realy has any relevance in 3D and 3D, sadly for the rule making community who want to tigh all creativity into line types and layer names, this is simply impossible ; that's why you can read so much nonsense about 3D.
3D will become near the 2D way of thinking when pople realise that 3D is about manufactoring and allowing the computer to calculate the various items to put together to make a building structure --- but these informations are rather about data to run the laser cutter, or where a particular frame are to be placed and what fittings near that building part , has to be manufactored at the same tme. And these are posts that do not fit well with the rule making of 2D CAD. It simply are another world.
Stop the car, I'm gettin out, I can take it
Yeah, we have standards, but half the people & projects in our office are still converting from some old system to national cadd standards. PLUS every year we update to the new AutoCad Architecture / ADT version, SOMETHING always changes, usually many things. Now guys on the other side of the office are making "Smart Blocks" to replace old cabinet type blocks, (not to mention half the office uses STB and the other half uses CTB.) More bullshit to learn how to use, and I GUARANTEE they will STILL REQUIRE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EFFORT because you can't incorporate attributes with fields into them. PILE OF SHIT.
You could always stop using AutoCAD, 66.
One thing I guess I assumed was layering was basicly standard - I mean if someone draws walls on the door layer, no amount of standards can help that person. I find overly rigid standards to burdensome. Yes - good layer adhereance is critical but let dictating things like "all jobs must go form 1/8" plans to 1/4" plan details and creating mountains of paper sets seems absurd, let the draftsman be the controler of the telling of the story for the set. That is if you have drafstpeople with brains and experiance I guess. It is after all, an art.
I should note - my personal pref in sheet setup is draw details, even on plans, near where theyre reference much like old fashioned drawings. It shows an understanding of how the building gets put together and sequenced. It works even for large projects. I guess I just enjoy reading old early 2oth c. prints and their craftsmenship of how theyre assembeled as sheet sets.
chspace
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.