coordinating architecturals and civil

[Anonymous]

Hi - I do not know if this the correct group to post this in or not, but
here it goes:
We the civil/survey have to coordinate our drawings to the
arch/mep/structural/everyone else.

They naturally use architectural units and set up an arbitrary north based
upon the column lines while we use decimal units and set up on some other
north. Once we get past the object enablers so that everyone can handle
scaling the aec objects, there seems to be a running problem of coordinating
ucs/wcs.

One solution is to draw some sort of control device - nodes/lines etc that
can be inserted into each drawing and used to align the different drawings.
Any other solutions?

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Nothing like a fast track job to get me to pick up a bottle of tums. Or two.
The architects - I think - have usually done a good bit of work by the time
we get out in the field - prelims, presentations - so sometimes its one of
those whoever gets in there first sort of things.

"Pete Gaudette" wrote in message
news:8682679B569C5BC400B6D466B298B656@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I would think the architects may get by with coordinate
> location of building corners< column line intersections if
> you will, on a multi building, single site project. May a
> column location of sorts in decimal units to be used by all.
> After that, in my experience, the civil site guys don't care
> what they do. Coordination among disciplines within the
> building become their problem to deal with.
>
> A little more light on my post above, the steel people had
> moved columns, but not updated computer models, drawings
> went out with bad info. Digging started. So much for well
> organized, having it all together big companies.
>
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:A43FE15F3385805FC476D862480584E8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >
> > "Allen Jessup" wrote in
> message It always
> > > makes me nervous developing coordinates for stakeout
> based on theoretical
> > > information, i.e. proposed plans.
> >
> > I have come to greatly admire and fear architects. 🙂
> >
> > Thanks for the posts - to pick on something Peter wrote -
> I am not quite up
> > to speed on what the architects need - or in what
> direction they may be
> > going as the software changes over time. I think that
> eventually their
> > drawings will have to be something that could be
> seamlessly inserted into an
> > overall facilities map - same for the mep and others. - a
> true 3d model,
> > with extractable attributes, no less.
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Does the units issue come up in metric drawings? (never having seen a metric
based architectural drawing)
"Tracy W. Lincoln" wrote in message
news:3EFC7A5F.640D98D4@autodesk.com...
> Yeah it's a blast!
>
> First there is the UNITS issue... ARCH: feet/inches vs. CIVIL: decimal
feet
> Second is what is a unit? ARCH: inches vs. CIVIL: feet
> Third is which coordinate system? ARCH: UCS? vs CIVIL: WCS
> Fourth is which way is positive rotation for angles? ARCH:
counterclockwise? vs.
> CIVIL: clockwise
> and on and on....
>
> Like PF posted, If you are an ARCH type XREF in the Civil drawing at a
scale
> 12:1 or if you are a CIVIL type XREF in the ARCH drawing at 1:12 and make
your
> 0,0 any place you need.
>
> **************************************************************
> Please, DO NOT send technical requests to me via private e-mail
> **************************************************************
>
> Tracy W. Lincoln
> Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums
>
> Discussion Group Links:
> -----------------------
> Index: http://discussion.autodesk.com
> Rules: http://discussion.autodesk.com/webx?groundrules
>
>

[Anonymous]

That project sounds like it fits in with a sign that I have on my office
wall.

"The Six Phases of a Project"

1. Wild Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the Guilty
5. Punishment of the Innocent
6. Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

I've been through all 6 phases on some projects, at least the first 4 on
most...

Charlie

"Pete Gaudette" wrote in message
news:8682679B569C5BC400B6D466B298B656@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I would think the architects may get by with coordinate
> location of building corners< column line intersections if
> you will, on a multi building, single site project. May a
> column location of sorts in decimal units to be used by all.
> After that, in my experience, the civil site guys don't care
> what they do. Coordination among disciplines within the
> building become their problem to deal with.
>
> A little more light on my post above, the steel people had
> moved columns, but not updated computer models, drawings
> went out with bad info. Digging started. So much for well
> organized, having it all together big companies.

[Anonymous]

Don't even get me started! Yes I forgot to throw THAT into the list.... all
the time.

**************************************************************
Please, DO NOT send technical requests to me via private e-mail
**************************************************************

Tracy W. Lincoln
Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums

Discussion Group Links:
-----------------------
Index: http://discussion.autodesk.com
Rules: http://discussion.autodesk.com/webx?groundrules

[Anonymous]

get a job for the US Gov't... PO, IRS... worked on both in Metric.. .sort of
sort of? Well the PARTS installed (diffuxers, etc.) are NOT metric - so it
makes less sense than you'd think.. but it IS metric, and it Does work.
there's still an issue: mm/cm? cw/ccw? 0degress = north/east? so it
still requires coordination.

[Anonymous]

Does here (NZ metric), Buildings invariably done in 1 unit=1mm, Survey 1
unit=1m...
We use an intermediate xref "datum file" to scale/re-orient etc external
files so all are alike then reference our datum file in all drawings. Also
copes with orgin shifts, often get "sketch plans" that "move" when
production plan stage is reached etc.

--
Regards,
Robin Capper

"Dave Walsh" wrote in message
news:E0A9EF83686692C78ECDB8B16526587F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Does the units issue come up in metric drawings? (never having seen a
metric
> based architectural drawing)
> "Tracy W. Lincoln" wrote in message
> news:3EFC7A5F.640D98D4@autodesk.com...
> > Yeah it's a blast!
> >
> > First there is the UNITS issue... ARCH: feet/inches vs. CIVIL: decimal
> feet
> > Second is what is a unit? ARCH: inches vs. CIVIL: feet
> > Third is which coordinate system? ARCH: UCS? vs CIVIL: WCS
> > Fourth is which way is positive rotation for angles? ARCH:
> counterclockwise? vs.
> > CIVIL: clockwise
> > and on and on....
> >
> > Like PF posted, If you are an ARCH type XREF in the Civil drawing at a
> scale
> > 12:1 or if you are a CIVIL type XREF in the ARCH drawing at 1:12 and
make
> your
> > 0,0 any place you need.
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > Please, DO NOT send technical requests to me via private e-mail
> > **************************************************************
> >
> > Tracy W. Lincoln
> > Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums
> >
> > Discussion Group Links:
> > -----------------------
> > Index: http://discussion.autodesk.com
> > Rules: http://discussion.autodesk.com/webx?groundrules
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

You could always do something radical like put the building corner at a
known point and then use dview to "twist" the view so that it looks the way
you expect it to look. When you insert it using the world UCS everything is
copacetic, or at least it works for me.

"Pete Gaudette" wrote in message
news:8682679B569C5BC400B6D466B298B656@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I would think the architects may get by with coordinate
> location of building corners< column line intersections if
> you will, on a multi building, single site project. May a
> column location of sorts in decimal units to be used by all.
> After that, in my experience, the civil site guys don't care
> what they do. Coordination among disciplines within the
> building become their problem to deal with.
>
> A little more light on my post above, the steel people had
> moved columns, but not updated computer models, drawings
> went out with bad info. Digging started. So much for well
> organized, having it all together big companies.
>
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:A43FE15F3385805FC476D862480584E8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >
> > "Allen Jessup" wrote in
> message It always
> > > makes me nervous developing coordinates for stakeout
> based on theoretical
> > > information, i.e. proposed plans.
> >
> > I have come to greatly admire and fear architects. 🙂
> >
> > Thanks for the posts - to pick on something Peter wrote -
> I am not quite up
> > to speed on what the architects need - or in what
> direction they may be
> > going as the software changes over time. I think that
> eventually their
> > drawings will have to be something that could be
> seamlessly inserted into an
> > overall facilities map - same for the mep and others. - a
> true 3d model,
> > with extractable attributes, no less.
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Dave/others,

Of all the potentially hundreds of drawings within an architectural set,
there is only ONE drawing that needs to show the building rotated on it's
site relative to true north, the site plan. So all 5 - 2000 other drawings
in our set are drawn in an orientation that's easy for us, typically with
the building orthogonal to the sheet so that it fits.

It's easy for us just to use the WCS that comes as a default, so that we're
never concerned with UCSs that can make xrefing difficult. There are only a
few reasons to use another UCS for our drawings, most of which have nothing
to do with site orientation.

Typically civil drawings show a building some distance away from 0,0 which
has actually caused Architectural Desktop to function poorly. They
recommmend we draw close to 0,0, which I usually recommend anyway.

As another poster mentioned, we typically need only a property line to
properly orient our buildings on the site. As you mentioned, we usually
coordinate some control point on the site, either a bench mark or corner of
the property that we say is fixed. We use this point to rotate the building
on the site plan using a known angle. I would recommend that you discuss
with the architects early on to determine what the control point will be,
and it will make coordination easier. Put the control point and rotation
line real big on a non-plot layer so that there's no confusion for either
party.

We understand and can accomodate most civil drawings because we understand
that you like to use a different unit system, and different orientations.
That's ok. It's simply easier for us to modify your drawings to suit our
needs than it is to do our entire set with other rotations and UCSs.

Hope that helps,
Danny Polkinhorn
Perkins & Will
Atlanta


"Dave Walsh" wrote in message
news:449843D8748472D3D1A1C792ADDFFADB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi - I do not know if this the correct group to post this in or not, but
> here it goes:
> We the civil/survey have to coordinate our drawings to the
> arch/mep/structural/everyone else.
>
> They naturally use architectural units and set up an arbitrary north based
> upon the column lines while we use decimal units and set up on some other
> north. Once we get past the object enablers so that everyone can handle
> scaling the aec objects, there seems to be a running problem of
coordinating
> ucs/wcs.
>
> One solution is to draw some sort of control device - nodes/lines etc that
> can be inserted into each drawing and used to align the different
drawings.
> Any other solutions?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

[Anonymous]

"Dan Allen" wrote in
news:1FF08E2B4B27ECD61069F28C68479A91@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb:

> Speaking as an architect, I prefer the property line to be included in
> all site drawings for allow for alignment.
>
> Dan
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:449843D8748472D3D1A1C792ADDFFADB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>> We the civil/survey have to coordinate our drawings to the
>> arch/mep/structural/everyone else.
>>
>> One solution is to draw some sort of control device - nodes/lines etc
>> that can be inserted into each drawing and used to align the
>> different
> drawings.
>> Any other solutions?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>

BRAVO, DAN!!! I work for a specialty contractor, designing shoring
systems for excavation walls, and use drawings from the Surveyors,
Architects, Civils, Structurals, etc. More often than not, it takes a
lot of fiddling to get the architectural drawing located properly on the
site, then more trouble matching the structural drawings to the
architectural drawings. The two disciplines that almost always "get it"
are the surveying and civil engineering, probably because the Civil just
takes the survey and modifies that for its various needs (grading,
utilities, etc.). The other disciplines frequently have different
opinions of what scales to use, what coordinate systems to use, what
units to use, and there is often a difference between the architectural
and structural drawings regarding the building grid and even wall
layouts!

Including a property boundary (accurately drawn, of course!) on every
drawing would immeasurably aid my work. Not infrequently, shoring system
choices and designs bump up against easements, and inches matter, so
accurately drawn property lines are a must. Also, given a properly-drawn
property line in each drawing lets me rescale any drawing to match any
other in the set, regardless of units, regardless of what the drawing
coordinate system is.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Danny.

"Danny P." wrote in message
news:3D7007BB4096851AB32FD5D83C4BD3D5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Dave/others,
>
> Of all the potentially hundreds of drawings within an architectural set,
> there is only ONE drawing that needs to show the building rotated on it's
> site relative to true north, the site plan. So all 5 - 2000 other
drawings
> in our set are drawn in an orientation that's easy for us, typically with
> the building orthogonal to the sheet so that it fits.
>
> It's easy for us just to use the WCS that comes as a default, so that
we're
> never concerned with UCSs that can make xrefing difficult. There are only
a
> few reasons to use another UCS for our drawings, most of which have
nothing
> to do with site orientation.
>
> Typically civil drawings show a building some distance away from 0,0 which
> has actually caused Architectural Desktop to function poorly. They
> recommmend we draw close to 0,0, which I usually recommend anyway.
>
> As another poster mentioned, we typically need only a property line to
> properly orient our buildings on the site. As you mentioned, we usually
> coordinate some control point on the site, either a bench mark or corner
of
> the property that we say is fixed. We use this point to rotate the
building
> on the site plan using a known angle. I would recommend that you discuss
> with the architects early on to determine what the control point will be,
> and it will make coordination easier. Put the control point and rotation
> line real big on a non-plot layer so that there's no confusion for either
> party.
>
> We understand and can accomodate most civil drawings because we understand
> that you like to use a different unit system, and different orientations.
> That's ok. It's simply easier for us to modify your drawings to suit our
> needs than it is to do our entire set with other rotations and UCSs.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Danny Polkinhorn
> Perkins & Will
> Atlanta
>
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:449843D8748472D3D1A1C792ADDFFADB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Hi - I do not know if this the correct group to post this in or not, but
> > here it goes:
> > We the civil/survey have to coordinate our drawings to the
> > arch/mep/structural/everyone else.
> >
> > They naturally use architectural units and set up an arbitrary north
based
> > upon the column lines while we use decimal units and set up on some
other
> > north. Once we get past the object enablers so that everyone can handle
> > scaling the aec objects, there seems to be a running problem of
> coordinating
> > ucs/wcs.
> >
> > One solution is to draw some sort of control device - nodes/lines etc
that
> > can be inserted into each drawing and used to align the different
> drawings.
> > Any other solutions?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

> Typically civil drawings show a building some distance away from 0,0 which
> has actually caused Architectural Desktop to function poorly. They
> recommmend we draw close to 0,0, which I usually recommend anyway.

Thats where we civils need to utilize the North/EAST basepoint option to
coordinate N/E instead of Autocad X/Y's.
If we are on a State Coordinate system, I make my Basepoint N4500000.000,
E55000000.000 equal to 0,0.
Only problem with this philosophy is that some surveyors we sub out to use
Surfcad which doesn't directly read LDD's N/E system. (unless i'm mistaken)

Looks like Land Desktop and Architectural Desktop are fighting each other
like 2 magnets butting together.
My personal belief is that LDD programmers need some civil experience in
real world work.

[Anonymous]

Good points.

What I do with a messy project like this is xref, scale and rotate the
pieces in and set my ucs to each piece then save a named ucs for each
orientation. Often each building has a different orientation.

Danny P. wrote:

>Dave/others,
>
>Of all the potentially hundreds of drawings within an architectural set,
>there is only ONE drawing that needs to show the building rotated on it's
>site relative to true north, the site plan. So all 5 - 2000 other drawings
>in our set are drawn in an orientation that's easy for us, typically with
>the building orthogonal to the sheet so that it fits.
>
>It's easy for us just to use the WCS that comes as a default, so that we're
>never concerned with UCSs that can make xrefing difficult. There are only a
>few reasons to use another UCS for our drawings, most of which have nothing
>to do with site orientation.
>
>Typically civil drawings show a building some distance away from 0,0 which
>has actually caused Architectural Desktop to function poorly. They
>recommmend we draw close to 0,0, which I usually recommend anyway.
>
>As another poster mentioned, we typically need only a property line to
>properly orient our buildings on the site. As you mentioned, we usually
>coordinate some control point on the site, either a bench mark or corner of
>the property that we say is fixed. We use this point to rotate the building
>on the site plan using a known angle. I would recommend that you discuss
>with the architects early on to determine what the control point will be,
>and it will make coordination easier. Put the control point and rotation
>line real big on a non-plot layer so that there's no confusion for either
>party.
>
>We understand and can accomodate most civil drawings because we understand
>that you like to use a different unit system, and different orientations.
>That's ok. It's simply easier for us to modify your drawings to suit our
>needs than it is to do our entire set with other rotations and UCSs.
>
>Hope that helps,
>Danny Polkinhorn
>Perkins & Will
>Atlanta
>
>
>"Dave Walsh" wrote in message
>news:449843D8748472D3D1A1C792ADDFFADB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
>
>>Hi - I do not know if this the correct group to post this in or not, but
>>here it goes:
>>We the civil/survey have to coordinate our drawings to the
>>arch/mep/structural/everyone else.
>>
>>They naturally use architectural units and set up an arbitrary north based
>>upon the column lines while we use decimal units and set up on some other
>>north. Once we get past the object enablers so that everyone can handle
>>scaling the aec objects, there seems to be a running problem of
>>
>>
>coordinating
>
>
>>ucs/wcs.
>>
>>One solution is to draw some sort of control device - nodes/lines etc that
>>can be inserted into each drawing and used to align the different
>>
>>
>drawings.
>
>
>>Any other solutions?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net
san francisco native plants
(415) 722-6037

[Anonymous]

Danny,

You are right. The only drawing us Civil/Survey types care about having any
connection to our coordinate system is a site plan showing the building
footprint we will have to stake out. We often prepare that ourselves from
the Architectural.

Autodesk also suggests that we draw close to 0,0. They also claim that their
LDD software will work in state plane coordinates. They usually aren't
anywhere close to 0,0. I know about BP/NR. There are problems with that.

Autodesk is trying to work out the BP'/NR,UCS, Dview TWist dilemma for the
next release of LDD. If it's successful maybe it will make its way into
Vanilla Autocad and ArchDesktop.

Allen.

"Danny P." wrote in message
news:3D7007BB4096851AB32FD5D83C4BD3D5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Dave/others,
>
> Of all the potentially hundreds of drawings within an architectural set,
> there is only ONE drawing that needs to show the building rotated on it's
> site relative to true north, the site plan. So all 5 - 2000 other
drawings
> in our set are drawn in an orientation that's easy for us, typically with
> the building orthogonal to the sheet so that it fits.
>
> It's easy for us just to use the WCS that comes as a default, so that
we're
> never concerned with UCSs that can make xrefing difficult. There are only
a
> few reasons to use another UCS for our drawings, most of which have
nothing
> to do with site orientation.
>
> Typically civil drawings show a building some distance away from 0,0 which
> has actually caused Architectural Desktop to function poorly. They
> recommmend we draw close to 0,0, which I usually recommend anyway.
>
> As another poster mentioned, we typically need only a property line to
> properly orient our buildings on the site. As you mentioned, we usually
> coordinate some control point on the site, either a bench mark or corner
of
> the property that we say is fixed. We use this point to rotate the
building
> on the site plan using a known angle. I would recommend that you discuss
> with the architects early on to determine what the control point will be,
> and it will make coordination easier. Put the control point and rotation
> line real big on a non-plot layer so that there's no confusion for either
> party.
>
> We understand and can accomodate most civil drawings because we understand
> that you like to use a different unit system, and different orientations.
> That's ok. It's simply easier for us to modify your drawings to suit our
> needs than it is to do our entire set with other rotations and UCSs.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Danny Polkinhorn
> Perkins & Will
> Atlanta

[Anonymous]

> Thats where we civils need to utilize the North/EAST basepoint option to
> coordinate N/E instead of Autocad X/Y's.
> If we are on a State Coordinate system, I make my Basepoint N4500000.000,
> E55000000.000 equal to 0,0.
> Only problem with this philosophy is that some surveyors we sub out to use
> Surfcad which doesn't directly read LDD's N/E system. (unless i'm
mistaken)

Huh? See, that's exactly why you get drawings from architects that aren't
rotated. I don't have any idea what you just said. 😉

-Danny

[Anonymous]

I must of missed something. What are the problems with BP/NR? This is one
of the few things I like about LDD.
I use it all the time. Please don't tell me its a rounding error.

[Anonymous]

different orientation....
Isn't that WHY acad made UCS's?
So, why are so many people ignoring the capability?

A single bldg is OK (but barely) on a WCS, at any convenient rotation.
A campus... you're sure to make an error somewhere on that assumption!

[Anonymous]

Just popped into this group - Robin, looks like you read my mind. An
independent datum file is the way to go - must be something about being a
kiwi!

--
Darren Myles
CAD Manager
Loughnan Hall & Thompson
Hastings, New Zealand

"Robin Capper" wrote in message
news:9ECC67A2543EBAA79AE5413E9EAD1A6C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Does here (NZ metric), Buildings invariably done in 1 unit=1mm, Survey 1
> unit=1m...
> We use an intermediate xref "datum file" to scale/re-orient etc external
> files so all are alike then reference our datum file in all drawings. Also
> copes with orgin shifts, often get "sketch plans" that "move" when
> production plan stage is reached etc.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Robin Capper
>
> "Dave Walsh" wrote in message
> news:E0A9EF83686692C78ECDB8B16526587F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Does the units issue come up in metric drawings? (never having seen a
> metric
> > based architectural drawing)
> > "Tracy W. Lincoln" wrote in message
> > news:3EFC7A5F.640D98D4@autodesk.com...
> > > Yeah it's a blast!
> > >
> > > First there is the UNITS issue... ARCH: feet/inches vs. CIVIL: decimal
> > feet
> > > Second is what is a unit? ARCH: inches vs. CIVIL: feet
> > > Third is which coordinate system? ARCH: UCS? vs CIVIL: WCS
> > > Fourth is which way is positive rotation for angles? ARCH:
> > counterclockwise? vs.
> > > CIVIL: clockwise
> > > and on and on....
> > >
> > > Like PF posted, If you are an ARCH type XREF in the Civil drawing at a
> > scale
> > > 12:1 or if you are a CIVIL type XREF in the ARCH drawing at 1:12 and
> make
> > your
> > > 0,0 any place you need.
> > >
> > > **************************************************************
> > > Please, DO NOT send technical requests to me via private e-mail
> > > **************************************************************
> > >
> > > Tracy W. Lincoln
> > > Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums
> > >
> > > Discussion Group Links:
> > > -----------------------
> > > Index: http://discussion.autodesk.com
> > > Rules: http://discussion.autodesk.com/webx?groundrules
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

All of the discussion in this thread leads me back to a post I made a while
back in the ADT wish group...that is that AutoCAD become "Unit Agnostic"
AutoCAD, by default, should draw everything "to scale." The ONLY difference
is how it's displayed. You want feet-inches, click on the feet-inches box.
You want decimal feet, click on the box, update your dims and WHAM! They're
decimal feet. Metric? Not a problem, just click on the selected metric
scale (EVEN IF YOU DREW IN FEET-INCHES), and there you go? No need for
scaling or any of that. Just make the program "Unit Agnostic." Can it be
done? Sure can. I've used a program that was this way. It was FANTASTIC.
In fact, it had the ability to "mix" units. You could have it set for
feet-inches and then by entering a letter (like "M" for Metric) before your
dimensions, you could enter something in meters. Doesn't AutoCAD already
have "Unit Agnostic" angular measurements? If so, why not everything else?

Unit Agnosticism Forever!!!
(almost sounds like a religion, doesn't it?)

P

[Anonymous]

There is a basic problem with this ideas. At least when talking about
vanilla Autocad. If your working in a vertical product like LDT or ADT your
probably in the AEC discipline so the areas you are dealing with will fall
within or nearly within and area measured in inches to one measured in the
10' of miles. In this case the use on 1 meter as the common unit would be
appropriate. In other words; no matter what system your were entering
distances in they would be drawn in meters. Then you could set whatever
system you wanted to list distances in and Autocad would convert the meters
to that system.

However. Plain Jane Autocad is used by people who are modeling molecules and
by people who are modeling large areas of space. There is no common unit
that would be usable by both people working in nanometers and by people
working in parsecs.

A nanometer is 0.000000001 of a meter. A parsec is 30,856,781,900,000,000
meters plus or minus.

There aren't enough decimal places to maintain accuracy over that range. my
conversion of a parsec to a meter is based on an 8 place display plus
scientific notation. The actual distance may differ by 500,000,000 meters.

This is the problem with a one unit base for Autocad. There would have to be
a common measurement that everything else is based on. The world may be
unitless but the measuring systems we have imposed on it are not. There has
to be a common frame of reference.

Allen

"3D Peruna" wrote in message
news:8709EE65773D839E0EB3EFBE541F8989@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> All of the discussion in this thread leads me back to a post I made a
while
> back in the ADT wish group...that is that AutoCAD become "Unit Agnostic"
> AutoCAD, by default, should draw everything "to scale." The ONLY
difference
> is how it's displayed. You want feet-inches, click on the feet-inches
box.
> You want decimal feet, click on the box, update your dims and WHAM!
They're
> decimal feet. Metric? Not a problem, just click on the selected metric
> scale (EVEN IF YOU DREW IN FEET-INCHES), and there you go? No need for
> scaling or any of that. Just make the program "Unit Agnostic." Can it be
> done? Sure can. I've used a program that was this way. It was
FANTASTIC.
> In fact, it had the ability to "mix" units. You could have it set for
> feet-inches and then by entering a letter (like "M" for Metric) before
your
> dimensions, you could enter something in meters. Doesn't AutoCAD already
> have "Unit Agnostic" angular measurements? If so, why not everything
else?
>
> Unit Agnosticism Forever!!!
> (almost sounds like a religion, doesn't it?)
>
> P
>
>

[Anonymous]

"Allen Jessup" wrote in message
news:3378A1C229BB92AEAECA80218785BE27@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> There is a basic problem with this ideas. At least when talking about
> vanilla Autocad. If your working in a vertical product like LDT or ADT
your
> probably in the AEC discipline so the areas you are dealing with will fall
> within or nearly within and area measured in inches to one measured in the
> 10' of miles. In this case the use on 1 meter as the common unit would be
> appropriate. In other words; no matter what system your were entering
> distances in they would be drawn in meters. Then you could set whatever
> system you wanted to list distances in and Autocad would convert the
meters
> to that system.
>
> However. Plain Jane Autocad is used by people who are modeling molecules
and
> by people who are modeling large areas of space. There is no common unit
> that would be usable by both people working in nanometers and by people
> working in parsecs.
>
> A nanometer is 0.000000001 of a meter. A parsec is 30,856,781,900,000,000
> meters plus or minus.
>
> There aren't enough decimal places to maintain accuracy over that range.
my
> conversion of a parsec to a meter is based on an 8 place display plus
> scientific notation. The actual distance may differ by 500,000,000 meters.
>
> This is the problem with a one unit base for Autocad. There would have to
be
> a common measurement that everything else is based on. The world may be
> unitless but the measuring systems we have imposed on it are not. There
has
> to be a common frame of reference.
>

The program I used that had this feature was HOK's drawVision...used by HOK
for small scale details and large stadia and high-rise buildings all around
the world. The system seemed to work just fine for our planet.

P