CAD Standards

[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.

[jonboy]

Am I missing the point here or something?

Solids (with HVAC, Mech. & Elec. Containment) is predominantly for 3D work - usually coordination. Ctb tables, layer names etc. take on a whole new ball game in this field. Styles that may be fine and acceptable in 2D layouts just don't work as well in 3D. Try it and see.
Maybe it's because of this that Paul is saying what he is?

Let's get some feedback going. Could be interesting this one.   

[Andy Robins]

Hmmm interesting, why do you think that 2D layouts dont work in a 3D enviroment, when you switch to Paper Space (Layout) and plot with HIDE enabled on the layout, you get a 2D plot, right? so layer names, colours of layers are equally valid for 2D and 3D. dont you assign a pen thickness via a colour?

[jonboy]

why do you think that 2D layouts dont work in a 3D enviroment?

Of course they do, Andy. What I'm getting at here is that, for a drawing to be of most use, the elements that are to be installed should stand out from the rest of the drawing. It's no good if the guy on site is struggling with a drawing where dimension lines, x-refs, etc. are as predominant as the stuff he's trying to install (which I've seen in some drawings!).

Taking it a stage further, if we issue a fully co-ordinated layout for reference (without dims, text, etc.) and then individual service layouts (complete with dims, text, etc.) these would require different pen settings because of the sheer complexity of one against the other. Likewise with mechanical and electrical drawings.

Am I making sense?   

[Paul Marsland]

Taking it a stage further, if we issue a fully co-ordinated layout for reference (without dims, text, etc.) and then individual service layouts (complete with dims, text, etc.) these would require different pen settings because of the sheer complexity of one against the other. Likewise with mechanical and electrical drawings.

This is my point exactly, You may have a different pen table for each type/scale of drawing you create, But if you have many different tables, so will everyone else who produces similar drawings, why not have one common set that everyone uses??

PM

[Steve-B]

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?

The layering system in Solids is fine by me. Some users do, though, prefer separate layers for flow and return on certain systems.

[Admin]

The layering system in Solids is fine by me. Some users do, though, prefer separate layers for flow and return on certain systems.

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]

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...

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'.