CAD Standards

[Dave M]

Guy's
After dealing with several people in the past at a number of companies on this subject,  I would suggest that the only standardisation you will ever agree on between companies is to use the 'M' reference as set up in the CADduct  layering system.
eg M570 for ductwork etc.
From experience, contracts can be so different from one to the next, even at the same company the layering requirements change. (different sections / services)
As Andy suggested, use your colours to define your pen weights.
The layering issue would only be a problem when you received a CADduct drawing from another source.
In those cases there would be a need for the recipient to have the originators services.iez and Autocad ctb plus the drawing would need to be opened using the drawing database. A little messy but possible.
When producing drawings for clients I would suggest that you don't let them dictate how you produce drawings. Stick to your standard and tell them that's how you do it!! A little controversial but tough. If they want to change line weights it can be done by changing layers colours in AutoCAD!

[chairpak]

I have found a solution that works for me. I offer to do the base drawings for all the diciplines. That way, I get my cake and eat it too. I have each of the diciplines set up the same way in a format that is easy to understand, and not all inclusive. This way they can add additional layers as needed but now they have a format to follow. I think this is the best resolve (for us anyway) to give a open ended format that covers as many possibilities that may arise. I find that when you tell someone that they MUST do something a certan way.. you run into unecessary flak. But if you give them an acceptable scenario, that they can play with, you get a much more compliant response.

[Danlux]

Just found this discussion whilst browsing. Be good to start it again. I can't see why we can't pick standard colours for our services an stick to them, all we would need to do is share a common CTB file with pen widths changed to suit the predominant service ie- Ductwork CTB would have a thicker penwidth for Ductwork. LTHW CTB would do the same for that service. We can standardise without too much upheaval, all we need to do is swallow some egos!

[DDI Ltd]

I agree in trying to standardise everyting, But things i have noticed with pen assignments... is that every one uses their own pen assignments because :
a) they use their own colours for defining different things (we have set up our building layer on color 252 and also made it really thin, so it comes out faint as apposed to any other surrounding objects / lines. But we also have 10 different colors set up for each different type of ductwork system... (Extract, Extract 2, Extract 3 .. .. .. Supply... WC Ext... Kitchen Extract... Smoke Extract...) So as you can appreciate, trying to standardise things would (for us) be a pain for everyone else, as im sure not everyone does this.
b) different people use different types of printers to suit their needs, i find using our pen assignments that are typically used for our A0 plotter, are no good for our A4 laser printer, because the lines are too wide or too thin to make anything out, and to be able to get the happy medium for everyone Is a task that will be continuously growing.

But, with the autocads E-Transmit feature, all pen assignments get sent with the drawing. we have a catalogue of all the pen assignments on our server that is shared with all our cad stations, so when we get in a new pen assignment, everyone has it instantly.

Other things im sure we could standardise, just need to find them

[Danlux]

Like yourself, I use color 9 for background services and set the width as fine as is possible, and have the ductwork set thicker. there are 255 colours to choose from! surely we can all use a different color for each service, we can all share a set background color! the same applies for text and dims, personally we use obscure colors for our services.

[tnbndr]

We plot all of our fabrication and installation plans in color. So our HVAC services use the primary colors as they plot clear and precise. Background in color 8, all other background objects such as lights, toilets, etc get color 9. The only color we don't use is yellow and just in case someone does our ctb is set to plot yellow as 9.
The field guys love the color plots, so do the other trades and it really does not cost anymore as most plotters have color that just isn't used. Sure running through the copy machine is a little quicker, but aren't we all about making things quicker for everyone else!??

Just my two cents
Dennis

[DDI Ltd]

yeah but, i think the idea of this post is to standardise the colours used, not the method of printing. We use what ever methods are available to us, some companys / people have colour A1/A0 plotters, some do not.

[Danlux]

True!
The colour standardisation should still work in principle whether you have colour capabilities or not.

[scottp]

the colors we use are..
return air--RA--1
supply low pressure--SLP--4
supply medium pressure--SMP--2(plot black)
transfer air --TA--3
stainless steel --SS--40
outside air--OSA--5
grease duct --GD--222
exhaust --EX--6
combustion air--CA--30
back grounds--BG--252
grid--5
not saying this is perfect but if someone is looking for a good place to start we have found these colors work well.

just my 2 cents:)

[jpuetz]

Guys,

Very interesting topic.  I like the idea.  Also like the idea of sharing resources for peak and slow times.

I have been working on a lot of laboratory work and found that it was really beneficial for myself, the shop and the field guys to break the job up into many more layers and colors to distinguish on the drawing the different materials and services (SA, RA, EXH, etc in Galv, 304 SS, PCD, 316 SS, etc.).

There will always be added customization to the standards, but a set standard will give everyone the same starting point and added understanding of each others drawings.

[cjehly]

I'm gonna throw in my input, although it's contrary to most of the thread:

I would consider it an easier task to get everyone on this forum to drive the exact same vehicle,  than it would be to get everyone on the same layers/colors/plot-styles.  
 
People have different needs, and will employ different techniques to meet those needs.  Some people can fully do their work with 10 layers, some can do it with 1 layer.  Personally, I'm around 50 or so because I like finite control.  Some people output to a black-and-white plotter, while others use color plotters.  Some people will put an entire building into a single working drawing, while others will divide a single floor into multiple working drawings.

[L18cammer]

I'm gonna throw in my input, although it's contrary to most of the thread:

I would consider it an easier task to get everyone on this forum to drive the exact same vehicle,  than it would be to get everyone on the same layers/colors/plot-styles.  
 
People have different needs, and will employ different techniques to meet those needs.  Some people can fully do their work with 10 layers, some can do it with 1 layer.  Personally, I'm around 50 or so because I like finite control.  Some people output to a black-and-white plotter, while others use color plotters.  Some people will put an entire building into a single working drawing, while others will divide a single floor into multiple working drawings.

even though i am in the shop and only deal with the cam end of thngs, this post makes the most sense to me. i think all have the right idea in mind, but i see a difficult time in our lifetimes (lol) to get beyond this. but i really think that this is a good place to start. it would be something though to see this at least get started. how's that commercial go? "think of the possibilites"

[cjehly]

I didn't mean to throw an anchor on a noble idea, ya'll.  

Here's my input: Backgrounds should be a shade of gray, and definitely not Magenta.

[Dan]

a while back i took a class on autocads cad standards and they is a lot of stuff that may be useful. it takes time to set up but well worth the trouble, i use layer translator very often

[jmorton]

Layer translator is useful indeed