We're having an issue where a client request on drawing legibility is interfering with our Drafting Standards (which are derived from the National CAD standard).
In this instance, we have an overall Tower Elevation at Scale 1:500. At this scale we don't show level lines since the text would overlap with one another on each floor and the smallest text size we use is 2.5mm for readability (regardless of scale). However, our client wants to be able to look at the entire elevation and see every single level and elevation without having to refer to part elevations.
I know this seems like something minor (and sort of stupid), but what course of action should be taken? All of our annotations are preset to be standards in Revit to follow adopted drafting conventions. Are we to manually create a smaller text font family in Revit for this one situation and break our conventions?
P.S. I'm not even entirely sure about the rules of showing Levels at different scales. If someone could clarify, I'd appreciate it.
midlander
Aug 4, 15 6:35 am
Usually in similar situations we only provide elevations for key floor levels, ie the ground floor / podium levels / MEP levels / roof level / lowest floor and highest floor of each elevator zone.
The client's request is reasonable. If you can't change the drawing scale to something a bit larger, then you'll need to adjust your level tags. Set up a custom level tag for this scale. Standards are meant to provide consistent and clear legibility. If the standard doesn't accommodate a necessary drawing, it needs to be adjusted.
In a typical tower minimum floor to floor height is probably between 3.2 and 4.2 meters. At 1:500 scale that gives you from 6.4 to 8.4mm to fit all your annotations. 2 ways we've done it on elevations / sections at that scale: - use 2mm text, 1 line for elevation, 1 line for floor name and number - use 2.5mm text, elevation and floor name / number on one line
The second option is easier to read and usually better - try it and see how it looks.
Steven Ward
Aug 4, 15 6:44 am
standards are tools, not rules. you do what your client wants, obviously.
senjohnblutarsky
Aug 4, 15 8:13 am
Even floors to the right. Odd floors to the left. Looks intentional. Easy enough to do.
Send consulting payment to the Senator John Blutarsky campaign fund.
BulgarBlogger
Aug 4, 15 9:05 am
"you do what your client wants, obviously. "
You know, recently I've been working with a friend of mine who has a professional rendering company and he does really amazing work... He told me something that I didn't really pay attention to beforehand, and that is that clients hire professionals because of their unique expertise... sure- you can have a client ask for a second opinion, it happens all the time in the different professions out there, but you never fundamentally question a professional's approach toward doing their work; you just question the ultimate outcome/verdict/result.
The point is: just because someone is paying you doesn't mean you have to slave to their demands... they hired you to do a job and you do it the way you know best. Quit being slaves to your clients!
In this case, there's little reason not to find a way to deliver the client what they have requested. It's not an ethical or design issue, and it sounds solvable with little extra effort.
haruki
Aug 4, 15 12:11 pm
This seems like such a reasonable client request. If they pay their bills I don't know why you are even giving their request a second thought.
BulgarBlogger
Aug 4, 15 12:18 pm
If they pay their bills I don't know why you are even giving their request a second thought.
...and down the slippery slope we go...
haruki
Aug 4, 15 12:56 pm
How is it a slippery slope to accommodate the client on something on an elevation drawing that totally doesn't matter to the architecture? The slipper slope is when cad monkeys start to believe the drawings are what matter when they really don't. It is the building that matters. Drawings are just lines on a page.
gwharton
Aug 4, 15 1:58 pm
"The slippery slope is when cad monkeys start to believe the drawings are what matter when they really don't. It is the building that matters. Drawings are just lines on a page."
(Bolded empty-quote for emphasis. Archinect won't let me increase font size or underline, but I would have done that too just to make sure this got the attention it deserves.)
Hi Everyone,
We're having an issue where a client request on drawing legibility is interfering with our Drafting Standards (which are derived from the National CAD standard).
In this instance, we have an overall Tower Elevation at Scale 1:500. At this scale we don't show level lines since the text would overlap with one another on each floor and the smallest text size we use is 2.5mm for readability (regardless of scale). However, our client wants to be able to look at the entire elevation and see every single level and elevation without having to refer to part elevations.
I know this seems like something minor (and sort of stupid), but what course of action should be taken? All of our annotations are preset to be standards in Revit to follow adopted drafting conventions. Are we to manually create a smaller text font family in Revit for this one situation and break our conventions?
P.S. I'm not even entirely sure about the rules of showing Levels at different scales. If someone could clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Usually in similar situations we only provide elevations for key floor levels, ie the ground floor / podium levels / MEP levels / roof level / lowest floor and highest floor of each elevator zone.
The client's request is reasonable. If you can't change the drawing scale to something a bit larger, then you'll need to adjust your level tags. Set up a custom level tag for this scale. Standards are meant to provide consistent and clear legibility. If the standard doesn't accommodate a necessary drawing, it needs to be adjusted.
In a typical tower minimum floor to floor height is probably between 3.2 and 4.2 meters. At 1:500 scale that gives you from 6.4 to 8.4mm to fit all your annotations. 2 ways we've done it on elevations / sections at that scale:
- use 2mm text, 1 line for elevation, 1 line for floor name and number
- use 2.5mm text, elevation and floor name / number on one line
The second option is easier to read and usually better - try it and see how it looks.
standards are tools, not rules. you do what your client wants, obviously.
Even floors to the right. Odd floors to the left. Looks intentional. Easy enough to do.
Send consulting payment to the Senator John Blutarsky campaign fund.
"you do what your client wants, obviously. "
You know, recently I've been working with a friend of mine who has a professional rendering company and he does really amazing work... He told me something that I didn't really pay attention to beforehand, and that is that clients hire professionals because of their unique expertise... sure- you can have a client ask for a second opinion, it happens all the time in the different professions out there, but you never fundamentally question a professional's approach toward doing their work; you just question the ultimate outcome/verdict/result.
The point is: just because someone is paying you doesn't mean you have to slave to their demands... they hired you to do a job and you do it the way you know best. Quit being slaves to your clients!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2014/09/02/no-the-customer-is-not-always-right/
In this case, there's little reason not to find a way to deliver the client what they have requested. It's not an ethical or design issue, and it sounds solvable with little extra effort.
This seems like such a reasonable client request. If they pay their bills I don't know why you are even giving their request a second thought.
If they pay their bills I don't know why you are even giving their request a second thought.
...and down the slippery slope we go...
How is it a slippery slope to accommodate the client on something on an elevation drawing that totally doesn't matter to the architecture? The slipper slope is when cad monkeys start to believe the drawings are what matter when they really don't. It is the building that matters. Drawings are just lines on a page.
"The slippery slope is when cad monkeys start to believe the drawings are what matter when they really don't. It is the building that matters. Drawings are just lines on a page."
(Bolded empty-quote for emphasis. Archinect won't let me increase font size or underline, but I would have done that too just to make sure this got the attention it deserves.)