STANDARD PROJECT

[obermeyerdc]

Can someone at Autodesk initiate and manage a series of complete projects that we can all share and develop online? The idea would be similar to wikipedia's format for an encyclopedia produced by public content.

I would argue that ACA08 is a very powerful tool but "out of the box" it's surprisingly horrific in my opinion when it comes to drawing quality and graphic design. It's a huge step backwards and too challenging to get under control. Printed drawings do not look sophisticated at all. Lineweights are generic at best. Getting sheets to print with a higher quality of graphic design takes a lot of work!

I think it would be fun to participate in the development of a complete project that users could collectively build and maintain. After all, with all the myriad of options ACA08 provides, at the end of the day, a construction document is a construction document. With so many customizable options in ACA 08 why cant we just build at least one project file that we all agree works graphically and functionally?

In addition, I believe drafting is a form of art when done well. Envisioning complex information so it reads beautifully is not easy and very few offices do it well. With all the advanced technology we have it's surprising to me that so much graphic garbage is still produced in architectural drawings. I think many users could learn from a shared project that focuses on the quality of drawing. It would give those of us who are learning the program a huge boost and those of us who already know it a challenge to design well.

The difference between "building" and "architecture" is art. This software should be called AutoCAD Architecture for a reason. Unfortunately, out of the box, it looks like AutoCAD Generic Dumb Building.

[Anonymous]

and who's layering naming system would we use, color dependant or name
style, who's plot style? Who gets to say if the line weight is to heavy or
to light? You might think it is to heavy and someone else may say it is to
light. Way to many factors for this to ever fly.

wrote in message news:5798236@discussion.autodesk.com...
Can someone at Autodesk initiate and manage a series of complete projects
that we can all share and develop online? The idea would be similar to
wikipedia's format for an encyclopedia produced by public content.

I would argue that ACA08 is a very powerful tool but "out of the box" it's
surprisingly horrific in my opinion when it comes to drawing quality and
graphic design. It's a huge step backwards and too challenging to get under
control. Printed drawings do not look sophisticated at all. Lineweights
are generic at best. Getting sheets to print with a higher quality of
graphic design takes a lot of work!

I think it would be fun to participate in the development of a complete
project that users could collectively build and maintain. After all, with
all the myriad of options ACA08 provides, at the end of the day, a
construction document is a construction document. With so many customizable
options in ACA 08 why cant we just build at least one project file that we
all agree works graphically and functionally?

In addition, I believe drafting is a form of art when done well.
Envisioning complex information so it reads beautifully is not easy and very
few offices do it well. With all the advanced technology we have it's
surprising to me that so much graphic garbage is still produced in
architectural drawings. I think many users could learn from a shared
project that focuses on the quality of drawing. It would give those of us
who are learning the program a huge boost and those of us who already know
it a challenge to design well.

The difference between "building" and "architecture" is art. This software
should be called AutoCAD Architecture for a reason. Unfortunately, out of
the box, it looks like AutoCAD Generic Dumb Building.

[obermeyerdc]

A naysayer right from the start. Okay, sure there will disagreements here and there but I don't think any of your arguments, valid as they may be, would undermine the big picture. The idea would be to develop a complete "best practices" sample project.

For layer naming, we use AIA industry standard which you should be using anyway. Working with color dependent plot style format in ACA 08 is not using the software to it's fullest potential from what I understand. As for the graphic quality of the file users could submit sets that they think are of high quality and we could vote and build the file to those standards. That's how wikipedia works.

Your argument led to another idea. We could build a project that we all know such as Frank Lloyd Wrights Falling Water. That would be a challenge. Could ACA08 efficiently produce drawings for such a custom design?

[Anonymous]

Are you a designer/professional AEC degreed, or a cad drafter by trade? I
ask because I don't know any design professionals that would consider a
canned format/standards in a CAD package remotely acceptable, but it makes
greater sense for those in the trenches drawing lines all day.

Dustin is not a Naysayer, just a realist: AIA standards everything have been
around for years, we all still only use them as guidelines and embellish 🙂

--
Dean Saadallah
http://LTisACAD.blogspot.com
Add-on products for LT
http://www.pendean.com/lt
--

[Anonymous]

We would use MY layering system.
And we're going to use MY stb file.
And if a line plots to light or to heavy, it's ME that will decide.
All other issues are up to MY discretion.

And if you don't like it..........too bad !!

Leo

[Anonymous]

leo way or the highway, fine lets start it. So do we show gyp and other wall
material on the plan walls, do we show it on building sections, do we show
wall covering in the plan view, paint thickness, do we hatch wall material
in the building sections and plans. Let's make it easy, leo just post a
project and that is the way of the land....no questions asked!

"Leo the Builder" wrote in message
news:5798493@discussion.autodesk.com...
We would use MY layering system.
And we're going to use MY stb file.
And if a line plots to light or to heavy, it's ME that will decide.
All other issues are up to MY discretion.

And if you don't like it..........too bad !!

Leo

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:59:24 +0000, ANDREW OBERMEYER <> wrote:

>The idea would be to develop a complete "best practices" sample project.

Yeah. Good luck on that one.

>For layer naming, we use AIA industry standard which you should be using anyway.

Zzzt.

The best layering system is the one that works for you. The AIA standards have
not cornered the market on logic, ease of use or sensitivity to drafting
fidelity. This WAS designed by committee, remember.

Layering is the least of anyone's problems anyway.

> Working with color dependent plot style format in ACA 08 is not using the software to it's fullest potential from what I understand.

Zzzt^2.

It doesn't matter one whit whether your drawings are CTB or STB based. People
are getting excellent drafted results from CTB files (and have been for, um,
over 20 years).

Again, what works for you (after completely investigating both sides) is what is
best.

>As for the graphic quality of the file users could submit sets that they think are of high quality and we could vote and build the file to those standards. That's how wikipedia works.

Zzzt^3 (Good thing this ain't baseball).

Wikipedia articles are not voted on, they are peer reviewed by a group of
editors, maintainers and administrators.

Voting on the best graphics or organizational properties of any project would be
pointless. What you think looks good to you may not look fine for someone else,
who you in turn might think is a complete kook.

In fact the best drawings I've ever seen did not adhere to the NSC or AIA
standards at all.

CAD standards and drafting quality isn't a democratic process. While there is
right and wrong, there are also a million shades of gray. Remember, 1,000,000
Celine Dion fans CAN be wrong.

>Your argument led to another idea. We could build a project that we all know such as Frank Lloyd Wrights Falling Water. That would be a challenge. Could ACA08 efficiently produce drawings for such a custom design?

Of course it can. We've all seen designs that were light years tougher than
Fallingwater - it is mostly straight lines, after all. And Frank did it the
first time with a boatload of pencils, a couple of scales and straight edges, a
lot of help from his interns, and hardly an electon being fired.

But FLW got the structure WRONG.

Stuff like THAT is what people should concentrate on. If a contractor gets a set
of drawings that actually MAKE SENSE, that is concise, clear and accurate, show
him solid structural components and thus allow him/her to build something of
value, it's a good set of drawings; end of story.

It doesn't matter if some lineweight is less than ideal or if the Project
Navigator structure is set up all weird. The net result needs to be something
that can be built with the least amount of callbacks, questions, RFIs, change
orders, cost overruns and other resource-gobbling bits.

But, of course, that takes dedication, education and time; things that are all
too often in short supply in design houses nowadays.

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

[Anonymous]

why not just use REVIT, it takes all of this and tosses it out the window!

wrote in message news:5798236@discussion.autodesk.com...
Can someone at Autodesk initiate and manage a series of complete projects
that we can all share and develop online? The idea would be similar to
wikipedia's format for an encyclopedia produced by public content.

I would argue that ACA08 is a very powerful tool but "out of the box" it's
surprisingly horrific in my opinion when it comes to drawing quality and
graphic design. It's a huge step backwards and too challenging to get under
control. Printed drawings do not look sophisticated at all. Lineweights
are generic at best. Getting sheets to print with a higher quality of
graphic design takes a lot of work!

I think it would be fun to participate in the development of a complete
project that users could collectively build and maintain. After all, with
all the myriad of options ACA08 provides, at the end of the day, a
construction document is a construction document. With so many customizable
options in ACA 08 why cant we just build at least one project file that we
all agree works graphically and functionally?

In addition, I believe drafting is a form of art when done well.
Envisioning complex information so it reads beautifully is not easy and very
few offices do it well. With all the advanced technology we have it's
surprising to me that so much graphic garbage is still produced in
architectural drawings. I think many users could learn from a shared
project that focuses on the quality of drawing. It would give those of us
who are learning the program a huge boost and those of us who already know
it a challenge to design well.

The difference between "building" and "architecture" is art. This software
should be called AutoCAD Architecture for a reason. Unfortunately, out of
the box, it looks like AutoCAD Generic Dumb Building.

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:19:03 +0000, KingSteve wrote:

>why not just use REVIT, it takes all of this and tosses it out the window!

Which is why Revit drawings look like crap.

:)

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

[JMoore]

Yawn

[Anonymous]

Will you stop asking all these questions and get your a...s back to work !!

(project ?? what the heck is a project ??)
(and I don't like paper space.....everything's gotta go in model)
(and layer 0 is all we need.....why make it so complicated !!)

Leo


"Dustin" wrote in message
news:5798557@discussion.autodesk.com...
leo way or the highway, fine lets start it. So do we show gyp and other wall
material on the plan walls, do we show it on building sections, do we show
wall covering in the plan view, paint thickness, do we hatch wall material
in the building sections and plans. Let's make it easy, leo just post a
project and that is the way of the land....no questions asked!

[obermeyerdc]

Yes, "Yawn". I agree. The posting title "Standard Project" was intended to target project standards. That is what I was working on when I wrote it. That is what I've been trying to implement lately using ACA 08. It's a big task for anyone at any level. You've all posted valid arguments but I'm sure no one would disagree to that.

Ultimately what I thought would be helpful for many users is working with more advanced project samples than what ships with the out-of-the-box product. Sure we would all disagree on standards but does anyone disagree that the software could at least ship with better project samples to demonstrate "best practices"? Maybe the hours invested so far simply aren't' enough but I still find it disappointing.

For those of you who know it all you're on this post to either show off or share knowledge. Sharing a file developed by experienced users and moderated by Autodesk (if their oversight is necessary) might not fit everyone's needs but for many I'm sure it would be a helpful platform for discussion and data exchange. As for individual building types and office standards Autodesk could provide a platform to post various projects. Users could browse dwf's to see if the sample project contents and standards fit their needs. Anything would be better than what we have to start with out-of-the-box.

Okay, fire away.

[Anonymous]

I'm with the others sorry.
I'm a designer/drafter and I sure have my own way of doing things.
I agree with the underlying sentiment but Acad/ACA's blessing is also it's
own curse. WE WANT THE POWER!
Agreed that OOTB stuff is poor but I don't use it anyway cause it's mostly
irrelevant and I have to develop all my own stuff for local products. Must
admit I've been thinking about Revit (sorry guys).
Sometimes you just want to get the job done.

Sorry Andrew, nice idea but it's dreamland.


wrote in message news:5798912@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes, "Yawn". I agree. The posting title "Standard Project" was intended to
target project standards. That is what I was working on when I wrote it.
That is what I've been trying to implement lately using ACA 08. It's a big
task for anyone at any level. You've all posted valid arguments but I'm
sure no one would disagree to that.

Ultimately what I thought would be helpful for many users is working with
more advanced project samples than what ships with the out-of-the-box
product. Sure we would all disagree on standards but does anyone disagree
that the software could at least ship with better project samples to
demonstrate "best practices"? Maybe the hours invested so far simply
aren't' enough but I still find it disappointing.

For those of you who know it all you're on this post to either show off or
share knowledge. Sharing a file developed by experienced users and
moderated by Autodesk (if their oversight is necessary) might not fit
everyone's needs but for many I'm sure it would be a helpful platform for
discussion and data exchange. As for individual building types and office
standards Autodesk could provide a platform to post various projects. Users
could browse dwf's to see if the sample project contents and standards fit
their needs. Anything would be better than what we have to start with
out-of-the-box.

Okay, fire away.

[Anonymous]

ANDREW OBERMEYER wrote:
> The posting title "Standard Project" was
> intended to target project standards.

no need to get so specific here,
a shared Project Standards file *could* be developed;
and maintain a certain level of flexibility for all Users to benefit.

(you should have probably titled your post: "AEC Standards Drawing", for
clarity...)

How?

1. Layers
Don't get hung-up on What to name a layer, or what it's output properties
should be.
Instead agree upon Standard *Layer Keys*, and embed these keys in the proper
Tools where appropriate.
Customize your AEC Object Styles so that Layer names are *not* embedded,
wherever possible.
Downstream Users can just alter the Layer Key Standard to be the Layer
Names/properties they like.

3. Materials
Not *render* Materials, but AEC ones.
Here is where the most work needs to take place, and where it would be most
difficult to agree upon a Standard.
Most times, the Style Display Override is required for a Material's
Displays; to get things outputting and looking right.
So things like color, for example, may get hard-coded into the Definition. A
little more difficult to customize and alter,
but still achievable.

2. Display
Utilize ByMaterial Display settings in AEC Object Styles and Definitions as
liberally as possible.
Control the output of, say, a Gypsum Wall Board Component in an AEC Wall via
the one-stop shopping
location of a Material Definition. If a downstream User (like Dustin) wants
to turn off the boundary and/or hatch of
That Component in all his interior Partitions, he can - very easilly...

Notes:

1. Avoid embedding Layer Names in AEC Styles and Definitions - the less
Layers you have in a DWG, the better. Learn to utilize the Display system to
control Object Display. It's what it's designed to do.

2. Explore Classifications, and their (potential) relationship to Display. A
properly configured setup could function much in the same way Revit Objects
react to "View Templates"; and thus Layers become even *less* important. The
catch is that regular 'ol AutoCAD Entities (vs. AEC Objects) may not be
given Classification assignments. So you'll always be stuck with a 2-part
Display management system, unfortunately...

3. Utilizing an STB plotting scheme, would allow one to standardize the use
of Color, for things other than output properties. I use 'em to provide
essential on-screen cues to the User to aide in Design. Example: My Steel
Door Material Displays in Green (in Plan views), My Wood Door in Brown, my
Aluminum Doors in Cyan, etc. As these Materials are assigned to the "Panel"
Component of my Door Styles (which utilize By Material Displays...); the
Objects now indicate to the user what they're made of, so to speak. That's
far better than having to grip-select the Object and examine Properties
every time I need to know...

--
Halten Sie an! Oder meine Mama wird Schießen!

[Anonymous]

I think your assumption is we all buy ACA, spends weeks and months 'fixing'
it, then use it. When in fact most of use have established standards, run
the migration tool or have developed our in-house migration over the years,
simply drop the CD/DVD, load the program, few clicks, and we're done.

Our way of doing things moves on to the next variation that is
ADT/ACA/AutoCAD and we remain productive: only delay is pre-planning time to
figure out how to implement new features and abandon the new junk added LOL

Your topic is only valid for NEWBs buying AutoCAD for the first time in
total absence of any kind of history with CAD or experience using AutoCAD:
how many of those in a single product 12-month life cycle I wonder... .

--
Dean Saadallah
http://LTisACAD.blogspot.com
Add-on products for LT
http://www.pendean.com/lt
--

[CadKT]

Actually I would imagine that there are many firms that are small or new that have a "CAD Manager" such as myself who have some understanding of a program or many programs, but are suddenly put into a role that they were not necessarily intended to do (the old adage of "wearing many hats"). I don't have any fancy programs to write my company,s CAD standards into ACA, but I have a boss who is very specific on how he wants layer managing & standards. So it would be helpful for myself and I am sure many others to be able to discuss how to change Template and Layer standards to be comapny specific.

[Anonymous]

Very true, and very helpful and excellent suggestion, but the topic at hand
is pre-packaging of standards into the program that would most likely give
your boss fits 🙂

--
Dean Saadallah
http://LTisACAD.blogspot.com
Add-on products for LT
http://www.pendean.com/lt
--

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:12:24 +0000, Corey A. Layton wrote:

>1. Avoid embedding Layer Names in AEC Styles and Definitions - the less
>Layers you have in a DWG, the better. Learn to utilize the Display system to
>control Object Display. It's what it's designed to do.

Sure wish Autodsesk followed that line of reasoning in the templates...What's
worse is that what they did is ALL OVER THE PLACE.

..and WHY oh WHY don't components of AEC Styles reference layer KEYS instead of
LAYERS?

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

[Anonymous]

Matt Stachoni wrote:
> Sure wish Autodsesk followed that line of reasoning in the
> templates...What's worse is that what they did is ALL OVER THE PLACE.

ygm...

> ..and WHY oh WHY don't components of AEC Styles reference layer KEYS
> instead of LAYERS?

that's a very good question.
I hope there's a few people left in Manchester who care to listen...

--
Halten Sie an! Oder meine Mama wird Schießen!