Fabrication CADmep™ > CADmep™ Standardization

CAD Standards

<< < (3/7) > >>

Admin:

--- Quote from: Steve-B ---The layering system in Solids is fine by me. Some users do, though, prefer separate layers for flow and return on certain systems.
--- End quote ---

I think that for this topic to progress someone has to post some ctb styles to try and get them accepted. We could all use them and then comment - problem is though that to produce a ctb style you first have to agree on a layering structure...
Catch 22?   :(

DDI Ltd:
for your information i have attached our services.iez for u to look at. please note that it is only for the Layering purposes this is attached for, the rest (items) is half way compleate.

the layer setout is how we at DDI have always worked ever since we started using CADduct. we have changed very little in the idea for services in CADduct-Solids. I hope it may give you more of an idea as to what you are looking into. But different companies use there own means of layering (some just use one layer and change the colour, others just stick the whole co-ordinated drawing (extract, supply, wc-ext etc) on one layer.)

i have also attached our penn assignments thingy which is set up to make all our ducting layers stick out more using the width of the colour.

DDI Ltd:
and the services....

mrseiko:
Just to comment...

I agree that if there was a standard layer list for everyone, drawing coordination between contractors and designers would be great.  However, currently our larger customers have CAD standards (which differ from one to another) we need to follow (including layering), otherwise, they will not accept our final electronic drawings leading to us not getting paid for that service.  To convince all of our customers which have developed their own CAD Standard to use a standard one is almost impossible.  So that is why people have created custom tools for switching drawings from one CAD standard to another (i.e. LAYTRANS in AutoCAD 2004).  As these tools develop, switching between CAD standards will become easier.

Regarding the Plot Style tables (CTB, STB) standardization:

Unless I am mis-informed about this, currently plotting devices print differently.  A 30% screened line on a Xerox device will print different than a Oce or KIP device.  Another example would be how each plotting device interprets grayscales which I'm sure are not the same.  So to have a standard plot style table doesn't seem to be appropriate since the plotting devices don't plot the same.  Another thing to think about is color plotting which the color palette differs slightly on HP devices than other devices.

I believe it is easier to create tools to change drawings from one standard to another than to get the universe to change to a single CAD standard.  I could be wrong but just a thought.  Please comment.

Admin:

--- Quote from: mrseiko ---To convince all of our customers which have developed their own CAD Standard to use a standard one is almost impossible...

to have a standard plot style table doesn't seem to be appropriate since the plotting devices don't plot the same...

I believe it is easier to create tools to change drawings from one standard to another than to get the universe to change to a single CAD standard...
--- End quote ---
Agree, agree, agree.
These are the points I have been making. I still feel that the simplest solution is the ability to save complete profiles..
i.e.
If I am working on a specific job and have to set up new services to comply with the job specification, change layer names to meet client's requirements or even change settings in the main database with regard to whether or not hidden details are displayed in plots, then I should be able to save a profile which stores all of these changes.
Then, if I ever do another job for this client I merely import this profile. The standard settings that ship with CADduct could be pre-saved as 'Default Profile'.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page