Fabrication CADmep™ > CADmep™ Standardization

CAD Standards

(1/7) > >>

Paul Marsland:
I am currently in the process of re-writing our company CAD standards, It is one of the most frustrating tasks as nobody can ever agree common standards, nor are they willing to change the way they currently work. Wouldn't it make life much easier if a common set of standards could be produced and adopted by xtracad users.

I am after some feedback from members who may be interested in debating the pro's and cons of standards with a view to ultimately producing and publishing them on the site. If members of xtracad all worked using the common standards, exchange of data and resource would be greatly simplified.

The first two standards I would like to develop are:

1. Layering  (based around BS1192 using compulsory fields only)
2. Plot styles (ctb & stb [does anyone actually use stb styles])

Admin:
Not quite sure who this is aimed at, Paul. To be effective you need to be involving those in charge of company standards...
However, it would make life a lot easier if we could only get those of us who are using CADduct Solids to agree on formats. It would mean that future releases could incorporate these standards and, therefore, not require any customising by users.
I've made this topic "sticky" to keep it active.
Best of luck. Come on, everybody - responses please!

Paul Marsland:
John, it is usually the people in charge of company standards that complicate things in the first place, the above is aimed at getting actual users comments, so that any standard I propose will ultimately assist people in what they do and not restrict & bog them down in non productive nonsense.

Whilst layering for instance could be standardised within a company, when people start to exchange data, or when (and I see this as potentially massive benefit xtracad could bring) companies start to share resource openly to balance their own workloads, all will be singing off the same hymnsheet...   Absolute bliss (call me an optimist, but we have to start somewhere)

Admin:
I see this as an important topic that could influence future releases of Solids so I've created this new forum and moved the topic here.

Brian Hogg:
This would be a big plus. If all Solids users used the same format then drawing exchange (contractor, sub-contractor, consultant, etc.) would be a breeze without error messages. Solids ships with services set up so, if everybody used the package "as is" there wouldn't be a problem.
As the layering system in Solids appears to be based on BS1192 the first question must surely be...
Is the layering system in CADduct Solids adequate and acceptable as it stands - if not what is wrong with it?
I post this topic because, without a starter, where does the conversation go.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page