Looks at drawing set at 7:50am... pre first cup of black coffee...
sees note on drawing section which reads +\- 7'-9 29/32"
Wishes he just stayed home
Who thinks this is a reasonable thing to put on a drawing? Is the mason going to space out the blocks to align to 9-29/32" instead of.... say 10"? No wonder contractors don't like us much.
citizen
Oct 17, 18 2:21 pm
First mistake: pre-coffee.
I got a nice laugh from this. The best part is the +/- . If it's approximate, why all the digits, genius?
I occasionally do some design review consulting. You would not believe some of the crappy, incompetent drawings people submit for entitlements. No dimensions. Few notes. No titles. Or north arrows. Or scale noted. Line weights reversed, so a paving pattern blackens the sheet while wall cuts are almost invisible. And that's before you get to the horrible designs.
Forget coffee. Pour me some Everclear.
Non Sequitur
Oct 17, 18 2:31 pm
I hear ya. One of my biggest issues comes with nonsensical drawing scales. 1:75, 1:30, 1:275? Like, wtf... who understands these? (apologies for the metric, I am sure there are equivalent imperial ones, just none that I've seen).
On the same drawing as my OP comment, a decorative conc block was drawn at 7-55/64". Does that everclear come in syringe format?
citizen
Oct 17, 18 2:44 pm
I'm waiting on the lozenge form. No more embarrassing bottles hidden in the bottom drawer.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 17, 18 3:07 pm
The tragedy is that we all think this is such a difficult profession when in fact the bar is actually quite low and doing sloppy work pays off. Sigh. Bad day.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 17, 18 5:30 pm
i hope you realize you almost drove through a town named after a relative of mine (not a slave owner).
I have cupcakes and oatmeal brittle, but no cookies.
I just dimensioned some plans to the 1/128th just for fun. I need more fun.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 17, 18 6:26 pm
12' - 6 943/128"
citizen
Oct 17, 18 7:03 pm
I hear that 1/1024th is a popular dimension now...
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 17, 18 10:25 pm
I saw an intern create
text at 2/32"
Miles Jaffe
Oct 17, 18 8:41 pm
Garbage in, garbage out.
Steeplechase
Oct 17, 18 8:50 pm
Just saw a dimension end with 209/256”...
awaiting_deletion
Sep 3, 20 9:57 pm
a whole new respect for Tom Wolfe (already thought he was a damn genius)
Non Sequitur
Sep 3, 20 10:30 pm
Nice to dig this thread back up... but metric is still superior.
apscoradiales
Sep 4, 20 8:56 am
tell your guys to set the accuracy in acad (I think it's accuracy, but not sure any more) to 1/4" or 5mm.
AND, send them to a site, to have a chat with the construction guys, LOL!
After that, they will never-ever do something as stupid as that.
Non Sequitur
Sep 4, 20 9:10 am
We do not ever set our dims or units to round-off to that.... big mistake. Drawing precision is to the thousandth mm (0.000) or 1/32". Not that we expect a builder to match that, but it helps instill discipline with the drafting staff. Much easier to just learn to draft properly... but you're right, the staff that draw to useless dimensions never spend time on site.
Chad Miller
Sep 4, 20 10:03 am
I agree with Non. Don't round your dimension accuracy - it will create problems. In AutoCAD or Revit keep your drawing precision to 1/32" and simply model things correctly.
The next big thing is establishing a minimum dimensional tolerance for materials.. For example we don't layout studs below a 1/2" dimension if we can help it - the framers won't be that accurate anyways.
Don't even get me started on masonry dimensions . . . it's not that hard to make things work to coursing people.
randomised
Sep 4, 20 12:55 pm
The people that expect builders on site to follow those kinds of ridiculous measurements can’t even put an IKEA cupboard together themselves, nobody should be allowed to draw for construction without at least having been to an actual job site.
atelier nobody
Sep 4, 20 1:03 pm
Nope, base accuracy should always be set to the maximum (1/256" in ACAD). Dimension styles can be set to round off (I like 1/16"), but never the base drawing accuracy.
apscoradiales
Sep 4, 20 10:11 am
I would bet your drawings were initially drawn in Imperial, as most design drawings are done due to the nature of people who design - most are older architects who still cannot think in metric, and are drawn by younger kids.
Then they're scaled into metric - that's why you end up with stupid metric dimensions.
I would get drawings from the design department all the time that are done in Imperial, then some asshole scales them into metric.
I would sometimes come in on weekends and redraw everything into proper metric drawings - nothing less than 5mm for accuracy, and if you use Imperial materials - which we always do, except for concrete block - I would re-align things or dimension in such a way you don't end up with stupid dimensions.
Take your younger guys to site meetings once in a while, just to hear from the contractors how often we produce drawings that are just plain stupid. It's a great learning experience, often times much better than sitting in studio and staring at the monitor.
atelier nobody
Sep 4, 20 1:09 pm
"I would bet your drawings were initially drawn in Imperial..." I would bet you are 100% wrong about people working outside the US.
Non Sequitur
Sep 4, 20 1:33 pm
95% of my projects start and end in metric. We still have some who will do imperial (and have 2 large repeat clients who insist on it) but we will never ever do a hard scale from imperial DD to metric CD. Redraw, everytime.
proto
Sep 4, 20 2:13 pm
I can imagine this happened in GSA projects in the US
atelier nobody
Sep 4, 20 1:13 pm
Going back to the OP, a personal pet peeve - the tolerance (±) goes AFTER the dimension. Also, its "±," not "+/-".
Non Sequitur
Sep 4, 20 1:35 pm
Disagree, because stacking looks weird to my eyes... also I always put +/- before the dim because you read left to right... and I assume that someone in a hurry might read the dim and ignore the symbol after.
apscoradiales
Sep 4, 20 1:55 pm
Years ago, I used to put +/- dims as well, until it was pointed out to me that if it's an existing situation you are dimensioning, then it's pointless to say that since, in existing, everything is +/- and the GC is supposed to verfiy it on site anyways (as per Specs or General Notes in case you don't have Specs).
If it's new stuff, nothing is +/- since you better know where you want that wall to be, for example.
Made sense to me, and still does today.
And, I've never had a problem doing that.
Non Sequitur
Sep 4, 20 2:05 pm
I should clarify that I don't often use the +\- symbol. I only use it for left-over dimensions that may relate to other critical dims or for interior things that are soft and movable. I swear, something is going out the window if I see a set of CD with vertical mullion spacing with a +\-...
proto
Sep 4, 20 2:16 pm
in our work (lotta remodel), "+/-" or "±" indicates to the builder the soft dim where he's allowed to make things work out vs the hard dims that need to be what they're shown as
apscoradiales
Sep 4, 20 1:52 pm
Randomised; I agree with you, but such is life and our profession in North America. Many times young new graduates are told do help out on some working drawing that has a yesterday deadline. They can't do a proper job due to lack of education and/or training. So, I don't blame them. I blame the management for the mistakes and silly dimension.
I once worked with an older Finnish architect who told me you had to have an apprenticeship and several years of experience in construction (carpenter, bricklayer, plumber, etc.) to be accepted into a school of architecture. I don't know if they still require that over there, but it sounded like a good idea.
Architectural Technologists are less apt to make silly mistakes on working drawings than the architects, because the are educated, and trained in that stuff.
But, like I said before, many of these silly dimensions are there because working drawing is saved-as version of design drawing that was originally done in Imperial (or feet-and-inches for the American crowd).
That again, is a management problem; "just take this drawing and add some notes and dims, we don't have much time or money to be spent on this project".
Even worse is when people overwrite the dimensions.
We had a case in one firm where the project architect instructed the job captain to do exactly against all protests. Of course, the GC took his scale out and scaled the drawing instead of reading the bloody dim.
Big lawsuit ensued...!
Non Sequitur
Sep 4, 20 1:59 pm
"But, like I said before, many of these silly dimensions are there because working drawing is saved-as version of design drawing that was originally done in Imperial"
Not correct at least not when I'm involved. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen this happen in our office but I see it a million times with tenant fit-ups (by others). Cheaper services (by others) don't take the time to do things correctly.
I was scolded a intern arch a few months ago (who is 20ish years older than me) because this person could not draw the same material thickness equally across all working drawings. It's a double digit offset of a vertical line? How do you mess that up?
apscoradiales
Sep 4, 20 2:03 pm
Glad you can get away with that and have the luxury of time to do working drawings, by essentially re-drawing everything. Unless, you are involved in the design drawings and schematics from the beginning, you will get a shitty set of drawings.
By the way, some people don't offset, they draw another line that looks "about right"...oh yeah, they turned the ortho off...!!!!!!!
Non Sequitur
Sep 4, 20 2:25 pm
It takes as much time to do it correctly as it does to do it wrong. We always start cd from scratch even if it’s the same team doing the work.
apscoradiales
Sep 4, 20 2:54 pm
"It takes as much time to do it correctly as it does to do it wrong"
Agree 100%. Now, if the DD package is done right, you could add more info and call it a WD, couldn't you? And save a tonne of time in the process.
Me:
Who thinks this is a reasonable thing to put on a drawing? Is the mason going to space out the blocks to align to 9-29/32" instead of.... say 10"? No wonder contractors don't like us much.
First mistake: pre-coffee.
I got a nice laugh from this. The best part is the +/- . If it's approximate, why all the digits, genius?
I occasionally do some design review consulting. You would not believe some of the crappy, incompetent drawings people submit for entitlements. No dimensions. Few notes. No titles. Or north arrows. Or scale noted. Line weights reversed, so a paving pattern blackens the sheet while wall cuts are almost invisible. And that's before you get to the horrible designs.
Forget coffee. Pour me some Everclear.
I hear ya. One of my biggest issues comes with nonsensical drawing scales. 1:75, 1:30, 1:275? Like, wtf... who understands these? (apologies for the metric, I am sure there are equivalent imperial ones, just none that I've seen).
On the same drawing as my OP comment, a decorative conc block was drawn at 7-55/64". Does that everclear come in syringe format?
I'm waiting on the lozenge form. No more embarrassing bottles hidden in the bottom drawer.
The tragedy is that we all think this is such a difficult profession when in fact the bar is actually quite low and doing sloppy work pays off. Sigh. Bad day.
i hope you realize you almost drove through a town named after a relative of mine (not a slave owner).
I have cupcakes and oatmeal brittle, but no cookies.
I just dimensioned some plans to the 1/128th just for fun. I need more fun.
12' - 6 943/128"
I hear that 1/1024th is a popular dimension now...
I saw an intern create text at 2/32"
Garbage in, garbage out.
Just saw a dimension end with 209/256”...
a whole new respect for Tom Wolfe (already thought he was a damn genius)
Nice to dig this thread back up... but metric is still superior.
tell your guys to set the accuracy in acad (I think it's accuracy, but not sure any more) to 1/4" or 5mm.
AND, send them to a site, to have a chat with the construction guys, LOL!
After that, they will never-ever do something as stupid as that.
We do not ever set our dims or units to round-off to that.... big mistake. Drawing precision is to the thousandth mm (0.000) or 1/32". Not that we expect a builder to match that, but it helps instill discipline with the drafting staff. Much easier to just learn to draft properly... but you're right, the staff that draw to useless dimensions never spend time on site.
I agree with Non. Don't round your dimension accuracy - it will create problems. In AutoCAD or Revit keep your drawing precision to 1/32" and simply model things correctly.
The next big thing is establishing a minimum dimensional tolerance for materials.. For example we don't layout studs below a 1/2" dimension if we can help it - the framers won't be that accurate anyways.
Don't even get me started on masonry dimensions . . . it's not that hard to make things work to coursing people.
The people that expect builders on site to follow those kinds of ridiculous measurements can’t even put an IKEA cupboard together themselves, nobody should be allowed to draw for construction without at least having been to an actual job site.
Nope, base accuracy should always be set to the maximum (1/256" in ACAD). Dimension styles can be set to round off (I like 1/16"), but never the base drawing accuracy.
I would bet your drawings were initially drawn in Imperial, as most design drawings are done due to the nature of people who design - most are older architects who still cannot think in metric, and are drawn by younger kids.
Then they're scaled into metric - that's why you end up with stupid metric dimensions.
I would get drawings from the design department all the time that are done in Imperial, then some asshole scales them into metric.
I would sometimes come in on weekends and redraw everything into proper metric drawings - nothing less than 5mm for accuracy, and if you use Imperial materials - which we always do, except for concrete block - I would re-align things or dimension in such a way you don't end up with stupid dimensions.
Take your younger guys to site meetings once in a while, just to hear from the contractors how often we produce drawings that are just plain stupid. It's a great learning experience, often times much better than sitting in studio and staring at the monitor.
"I would bet your drawings were initially drawn in Imperial..." I would bet you are 100% wrong about people working outside the US.
95% of my projects start and end in metric. We still have some who will do imperial (and have 2 large repeat clients who insist on it) but we will never ever do a hard scale from imperial DD to metric CD. Redraw, everytime.
I can imagine this happened in GSA projects in the US
Going back to the OP, a personal pet peeve - the tolerance (±) goes AFTER the dimension. Also, its "±," not "+/-".
Disagree, because stacking looks weird to my eyes... also I always put +/- before the dim because you read left to right... and I assume that someone in a hurry might read the dim and ignore the symbol after.
Years ago, I used to put +/- dims as well, until it was pointed out to me that if it's an existing situation you are dimensioning, then it's pointless to say that since, in existing, everything is +/- and the GC is supposed to verfiy it on site anyways (as per Specs or General Notes in case you don't have Specs).
If it's new stuff, nothing is +/- since you better know where you want that wall to be, for example.
Made sense to me, and still does today.
And, I've never had a problem doing that.
I should clarify that I don't often use the +\- symbol. I only use it for left-over dimensions that may relate to other critical dims or for interior things that are soft and movable. I swear, something is going out the window if I see a set of CD with vertical mullion spacing with a +\-...
in our work (lotta remodel), "+/-" or "±" indicates to the builder the soft dim where he's allowed to make things work out vs the hard dims that need to be what they're shown as
Randomised; I agree with you, but such is life and our profession in North America. Many times young new graduates are told do help out on some working drawing that has a yesterday deadline. They can't do a proper job due to lack of education and/or training. So, I don't blame them. I blame the management for the mistakes and silly dimension.
I once worked with an older Finnish architect who told me you had to have an apprenticeship and several years of experience in construction (carpenter, bricklayer, plumber, etc.) to be accepted into a school of architecture. I don't know if they still require that over there, but it sounded like a good idea.
Architectural Technologists are less apt to make silly mistakes on working drawings than the architects, because the are educated, and trained in that stuff.
But, like I said before, many of these silly dimensions are there because working drawing is saved-as version of design drawing that was originally done in Imperial (or feet-and-inches for the American crowd).
That again, is a management problem; "just take this drawing and add some notes and dims, we don't have much time or money to be spent on this project".
Even worse is when people overwrite the dimensions.
We had a case in one firm where the project architect instructed the job captain to do exactly against all protests. Of course, the GC took his scale out and scaled the drawing instead of reading the bloody dim.
Big lawsuit ensued...!
"But, like I said before, many of these silly dimensions are there because working drawing is saved-as version of design drawing that was originally done in Imperial"
Not correct at least not when I'm involved. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen this happen in our office but I see it a million times with tenant fit-ups (by others). Cheaper services (by others) don't take the time to do things correctly.
I was scolded a intern arch a few months ago (who is 20ish years older than me) because this person could not draw the same material thickness equally across all working drawings. It's a double digit offset of a vertical line? How do you mess that up?
Glad you can get away with that and have the luxury of time to do working drawings, by essentially re-drawing everything. Unless, you are involved in the design drawings and schematics from the beginning, you will get a shitty set of drawings.
By the way, some people don't offset, they draw another line that looks "about right"...oh yeah, they turned the ortho off...!!!!!!!
It takes as much time to do it correctly as it does to do it wrong. We always start cd from scratch even if it’s the same team doing the work.
"It takes as much time to do it correctly as it does to do it wrong"
Agree 100%. Now, if the DD package is done right, you could add more info and call it a WD, couldn't you? And save a tonne of time in the process.