Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply
Message 1 of 20
Anonymous
707 Views, 19 Replies

File management

What is the recommended way to save drawings in AutoCAD 2002?

Until we upgraded from r14/Softdesk 8 to Architectural Desktop 3.3, we were
creating separate drawing files for what can now be saved as tabs within a
single 2002 drawing file. This can become real unwieldy for a big project.

Are there ways to load and unload all but one tab or do we still need to
create multiple drawing files?

Thanks!

Rich Mathews
Asheville, NC
19 REPLIES 19
Message 2 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

its personal preference, really.... some people still use tile model space
only for everything with acad2002.... also, i wouldnt suggest putting a
whole project in one drawing, although i have heard of people doing this....
the only time i would create multiple tabs is on plans where 2 or more
sheets are needed for the grading plan, or site plan, etc.... i also will
create my 8.5X11 exhibits on the same drawing in a different tab... this
keeps the amount of drawings smaller for a project... under no circumstance
would i ever put an entire project on the tabs, or even combine a site plan
and grading plan into one drawing....

--
+/-
"Don't wait, procrastinate now."
+/-


"Rich Mathews" wrote in message
news:93CE0769CB1F54ED5ADD21F4AADA775D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> What is the recommended way to save drawings in AutoCAD 2002?
>
> Until we upgraded from r14/Softdesk 8 to Architectural Desktop 3.3, we
were
> creating separate drawing files for what can now be saved as tabs within a
> single 2002 drawing file. This can become real unwieldy for a big project.
>
> Are there ways to load and unload all but one tab or do we still need to
> create multiple drawing files?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rich Mathews
> Asheville, NC
>
>
>
>
Message 3 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Being a one person shop, I usually keep everything in one drawing file. Using
layer management and viewport controls, I create a separate tab for each plotted
sheet and manipulate what shows in each layout. I seldom work in the Model tab -
I create several 'working' layouts so I can have different views (layer content)
in each one so background information can be screened out when I don't need it.
The model tab usually has everything on and is unworkable.

When I'm done, I can plot all layouts in one swipe or flip from 'plotted' sheet
to 'plotted' sheet by changing tabs. Each layout has a numbered title sheet. I
don't use xrefs but those in multiple seat work groups probably will need them.

_____________
Karl M. Fuls PLS
AEC Training and Consulting
Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums


STEVE-O wrote:

> its personal preference, really.... some people still use tile model space
> only for everything with acad2002.... also, i wouldnt suggest putting a
> whole project in one drawing, although i have heard of people doing this....
> the only time i would create multiple tabs is on plans where 2 or more
> sheets are needed for the grading plan, or site plan, etc.... i also will
> create my 8.5X11 exhibits on the same drawing in a different tab... this
> keeps the amount of drawings smaller for a project... under no circumstance
> would i ever put an entire project on the tabs, or even combine a site plan
> and grading plan into one drawing....
>
> --
> +/-
> "Don't wait, procrastinate now."
> +/-
>
> "Rich Mathews" wrote in message
> news:93CE0769CB1F54ED5ADD21F4AADA775D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > What is the recommended way to save drawings in AutoCAD 2002?
> >
> > Until we upgraded from r14/Softdesk 8 to Architectural Desktop 3.3, we
> were
> > creating separate drawing files for what can now be saved as tabs within a
> > single 2002 drawing file. This can become real unwieldy for a big project.
> >
> > Are there ways to load and unload all but one tab or do we still need to
> > create multiple drawing files?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Rich Mathews
> > Asheville, NC
> >
> >
> >
> >
Message 4 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I am a firm believer in taking a long hard look at how people work, first,
to design a solution suited to your offices workflow. In our case, I found
that a single drafter will work 90% of a project, and the project size made
it possible to use multiple layouts with no performance degredation. So, we
will use one sheet file for a set of related plans - the demo, floor,
ceiling, power, finish and furniture plan for a single floor, or section of
a project will all separate layout tabs in one file. The model is still
xrefed in. All onnotation that can go in the sheet file goes in the
layouts. There are ADT annotation objects, like door tags, that need to be
in the model file. Fixing that is one of my own biggest wish list items.

There's no partial load for hte layout tabs, so far as I know. Regen times
when switching from one tab to another are not bad - the inactive tabs are
cached once created.

Bear in mind that our solution works because of our staff size, and the
nature of the workflow. I would reccomend that all smaller offices think
about this, but really analyze it before adopting it.



"Rich Mathews" wrote in message
news:93CE0769CB1F54ED5ADD21F4AADA775D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> What is the recommended way to save drawings in AutoCAD 2002?
>
> Until we upgraded from r14/Softdesk 8 to Architectural Desktop 3.3, we
were
> creating separate drawing files for what can now be saved as tabs within a
> single 2002 drawing file. This can become real unwieldy for a big project.
>
> Are there ways to load and unload all but one tab or do we still need to
> create multiple drawing files?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rich Mathews
> Asheville, NC
>
>
>
>
Message 5 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Rich,

I recently dug out our CAD manual and plopped it on our Intranet, which I've
made available to the public. It's not pretty, and some of it's out of date, but
you can find it at http://cad.beyerdesign.com/cad/bai_stds.htm.

It has our basic file management system and workflow documented.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:16:22 -0700, "Rich Mathews"
wrote:

>What is the recommended way to save drawings in AutoCAD 2002?
>
>Until we upgraded from r14/Softdesk 8 to Architectural Desktop 3.3, we were
>creating separate drawing files for what can now be saved as tabs within a
>single 2002 drawing file. This can become real unwieldy for a big project.
>
>Are there ways to load and unload all but one tab or do we still need to
>create multiple drawing files?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Rich Mathews
>Asheville, NC
>
>
>
Message 6 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt,

You did a terrific if not exceptional job on your standards.

Maybe the reason I find it so well done is that for the most part as I read
through it, and I read it from the top to the bottom, I agreed with almost
all of your methodology.

Your writing technique also was very well done. You wrote as you would say
it, and it flows well and reads easily. Obviously, you spent a lot of time
smoothing it out and making it understandable to the average reader.

Since writing this in 2000, have you made any changes toward the AIA layer
guidelines? That is one point that I found difficult for me, but then, the
first time I read the AIA layer guidelines I found that difficult to
understand also. By the time I finished reading the full body of text, and
quite frankly, like a good novel, I was disappointed when I reached the end,
the last dialog box. There must be more.

The only other point I questioned is that I like to position the bottom left
corner of the paper at 0,0,0, while you prefer the same corner of the border
at 0,0,0. What is your reasoning for not using the edge of the paper?

Another question comes to my mind regarding the use of third party fonts.
You are using Architxt which I believe is a 3rd party font, or maybe came
with Softdesk, but in general, this would not be something that all your
consultants would have handy. How do you deal with firms that do not have
that font, and how do their plotted drawings look when they plot out your
drawings? What do they see on their monitors when using your drawings as
backgrounds or for other purposes?

All in all, I really think you did a magnificent job.

Thank you for sharing it with us. I am very pleased that I took the time to
look at it.

Jack Talsky


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:fjuugu4ui7omcsakkkgn5cqqg76echkhdu@4ax.com...
> Rich,
>
> I recently dug out our CAD manual and plopped it on our Intranet, which
I've
> made available to the public. It's not pretty, and some of it's out of
date, but
> you can find it at http://cad.beyerdesign.com/cad/bai_stds.htm.
>
> It has our basic file management system and workflow documented.
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
Message 7 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

here is a set of standards/guidelines for your info

at this link

http://www.ia.nrcs.usda.gov/design/

Mike
Message 8 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Thank you for sharing this. It is superb!

Rich Mathews

"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:fjuugu4ui7omcsakkkgn5cqqg76echkhdu@4ax.com...
> Rich,
>
> I recently dug out our CAD manual and plopped it on our Intranet, which
I've
> made available to the public. It's not pretty, and some of it's out of
date, but
> you can find it at http://cad.beyerdesign.com/cad/bai_stds.htm.
>
> It has our basic file management system and workflow documented.
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
Message 9 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Jack,

As always, thanks for the comments. You raised some very good points.

As far as layering goes, I've always felt that any decent standard, that takes
into account ease of use, efficiency, elegance and extensibility, will do - as
long as users can deal with it and produce consistent "Good CAD." I reject the
notion that the AIA or NCS standards are a good idea solely on the fact that
they are "national" in scope. Maybe it's because every CAD file I've seen that
supposedly adheres to these standards has been such a freaking mess, the layer
names themselves don't make any difference.

If you put something on the right layer, that goes a longer way towards making a
drawing usable than making sure your layer names are set off of some "standard"
(created by people who may or may not do what you do). Unfortunately, I've just
never seen a NCS or AIA-based drawing file that was worth anything - they've all
been simply horrible in more ways than one.

My layering standards are actually going to change slightly in the coming
months, due to (a) comapny wide adoption of ADT and (b) my standards aren't as
good as they can be. The big change is that the "interior" and "exterior"
designations ("IW" and "EW" ) are going away. It's nice for some jobs to do
this, but our firm is moving from doing solely interiors work to providing more
full architectural services. Along with ADT's ability to incorporate components
inside of walls/doors/windows, and include layering into the display reps, then
we can remove some layer names and add some others.

In any case, I prefer my particular methodology of prefixes and suffixes over
the NCS/AIA, which I think are backwards, redundant and self-defeating in some
ways. For example, I've never understood why someone would label something as
"New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is New. And
most architectural work is dealing with New anyway, so it's just one more thing
you don't have to deal with. Also, I put the "ANNO" type of prefix (for us it's
simply an "N") in the front of the layer name so that the layers naturally
separate out "real world" stuff (walls, doors, furniture) from the accompanying
annotation.

This is directly related due to us separating out files to a high degree, such
that a furniture drawing only has a base plan, not RCP and Demo tacked on; this
enables us to concentrate the file to one purpose only, to document what is
being designed. This also eliminates many layering problems in the CDs
themselves, as you don't have to worry so much about layer maintenence when
plotting. Just set them up and go.

In any event the differences between my standards and the AIA are stictly
syntactical, but I think the spirit is the same.

I'm glad to hear you found the AIA standards so enthralling to read. It probably
wouldn't be the first thing I pull off the shelf to keep me entertained on a
plane ride. 🙂 I haven't read the AIA stds in a while, so maybe they got a ghost
writer to make it more interesting.

As far as fonts go, we've been using ARCHITXT and a Helvetica SHX font
(HLVM1S.SHX) for some time, which has worked out well. Funny, the first thing I
did here was to eliminate about 4 other 3rd party fonts from our systems and
convert everything to one or the other.

I simply bundle them into the ZIP files when I send them out to others. As long
as the recipients dump everything into the same folder, or plop the SHX files
into their fonts folder, they're fine - I haven't had any comments to the
contrary. Our consultants tend to use pretty asstastic fonts like TXT for
everything, so it's not like they have anywhere to go but up 🙂 Consultants take
our files and either put everything on a "background" layer and scribble on top,
or just change the colors of existing layers to screen it out.

>The only other point I questioned is that I like to position the bottom left
>corner of the paper at 0,0,0, while you prefer the same corner of the border
>at 0,0,0. What is your reasoning for not using the edge of the paper?

Um.. I don't think we do this. I created our title blocks so that the 0,0 point
is actually 1-1/4"x3/16" or so from the bottom left hand corner of the actual
sheet border on the title block (i.e., the heavy lines). When plotted, this
margin combines with the hardware margin to produce a title block rectangle that
is positioned on the cut sheet properly, 1-1/2" from the left edge and 1/2" from
the bottom edge of the cut paper. The title block as well as the component
blocks that make up a formatted sheet are always based on WCS 0,0,0. It all
plots out fine. And I don't have to set up any "standard margins" in the Plot
dialog, which would eventaully get screwed up by users.

Looking over this really lame HTML page, I can see where the Word-HTML
conversion really screwed up. Headers aren't included, so when I go from one
section to another there's nothing to announce it. I need to update the original
doc, split it up into chapter files, then import them to and HTML framed set of
pages, to make navigation easier. As it is, it's a total mess.

Thanks for reading!

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
Message 10 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

> For example, I've never understood why someone would label something as
> "New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is New.
And
> most architectural work is dealing with New anyway, so it's just one more
thing
> you don't have to deal with.

We use N for "new" (which is the default) because then it means all of our
layer names have the same "properties" which means we can manage our data
with the same macros in the same way. We can change entities from N layers
to E (existing) simply by selecting them or what ever.

You are right that most architectural work is dealing with new in that even
in a renovation, you are adding "new" . However, if you have the new built
into your layer names, you can easily change the "new" from the exiting cad
drawing to "existing". I know you can also rename, but that only works with
the first renovation to a new building. Once you have "new" and "existing"
you can not rename.

Dave Alexander
Message 11 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand your point...If I want to rename a layer
from "new" to existing, it's as trivial as renaming "A_*" to "AE_*" (whether the
"new" is there or not does not matter).

If there is both New and Existing content in the file, which needs to all be
Existing, then moving the "new" stuff to the corresponding "existing" layer is
equally trivial; in fact I have several macros which move stuff from any "new"
layer to "existing" and/or "demo"

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:51:22 -0700, "Dave Alexander"
wrote:

>
>> For example, I've never understood why someone would label something as
>> "New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is New.
>And
>> most architectural work is dealing with New anyway, so it's just one more
>thing
>> you don't have to deal with.
>
>We use N for "new" (which is the default) because then it means all of our
>layer names have the same "properties" which means we can manage our data
>with the same macros in the same way. We can change entities from N layers
>to E (existing) simply by selecting them or what ever.
>
>You are right that most architectural work is dealing with new in that even
>in a renovation, you are adding "new" . However, if you have the new built
>into your layer names, you can easily change the "new" from the exiting cad
>drawing to "existing". I know you can also rename, but that only works with
>the first renovation to a new building. Once you have "new" and "existing"
>you can not rename.
>
>Dave Alexander
>
Message 12 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

<"New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is New.

Hear Hear....I've often thought this aloud as well.

Steve


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:2bu0hus2p7fnolh37n92aht36mjvvoa91r@4ax.com...
> Jack,
>
> As always, thanks for the comments. You raised some very good points.
>
> As far as layering goes, I've always felt that any decent standard, that
takes
> into account ease of use, efficiency, elegance and extensibility, will
do - as
> long as users can deal with it and produce consistent "Good CAD." I reject
the
> notion that the AIA or NCS standards are a good idea solely on the fact
that
> they are "national" in scope. Maybe it's because every CAD file I've seen
that
> supposedly adheres to these standards has been such a freaking mess, the
layer
> names themselves don't make any difference.
>
> If you put something on the right layer, that goes a longer way towards
making a
> drawing usable than making sure your layer names are set off of some
"standard"
> (created by people who may or may not do what you do). Unfortunately, I've
just
> never seen a NCS or AIA-based drawing file that was worth anything -
they've all
> been simply horrible in more ways than one.
>
> My layering standards are actually going to change slightly in the coming
> months, due to (a) comapny wide adoption of ADT and (b) my standards
aren't as
> good as they can be. The big change is that the "interior" and "exterior"
> designations ("IW" and "EW" ) are going away. It's nice for some jobs to
do
> this, but our firm is moving from doing solely interiors work to providing
more
> full architectural services. Along with ADT's ability to incorporate
components
> inside of walls/doors/windows, and include layering into the display reps,
then
> we can remove some layer names and add some others.
>
> In any case, I prefer my particular methodology of prefixes and suffixes
over
> the NCS/AIA, which I think are backwards, redundant and self-defeating in
some
> ways. For example, I've never understood why someone would label something
as
> "New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is New.
And
> most architectural work is dealing with New anyway, so it's just one more
thing
> you don't have to deal with. Also, I put the "ANNO" type of prefix (for us
it's
> simply an "N") in the front of the layer name so that the layers naturally
> separate out "real world" stuff (walls, doors, furniture) from the
accompanying
> annotation.
>
> This is directly related due to us separating out files to a high degree,
such
> that a furniture drawing only has a base plan, not RCP and Demo tacked on;
this
> enables us to concentrate the file to one purpose only, to document what
is
> being designed. This also eliminates many layering problems in the CDs
> themselves, as you don't have to worry so much about layer maintenence
when
> plotting. Just set them up and go.
>
> In any event the differences between my standards and the AIA are stictly
> syntactical, but I think the spirit is the same.
>
> I'm glad to hear you found the AIA standards so enthralling to read. It
probably
> wouldn't be the first thing I pull off the shelf to keep me entertained on
a
> plane ride. 🙂 I haven't read the AIA stds in a while, so maybe they got a
ghost
> writer to make it more interesting.
>
> As far as fonts go, we've been using ARCHITXT and a Helvetica SHX font
> (HLVM1S.SHX) for some time, which has worked out well. Funny, the first
thing I
> did here was to eliminate about 4 other 3rd party fonts from our systems
and
> convert everything to one or the other.
>
> I simply bundle them into the ZIP files when I send them out to others. As
long
> as the recipients dump everything into the same folder, or plop the SHX
files
> into their fonts folder, they're fine - I haven't had any comments to the
> contrary. Our consultants tend to use pretty asstastic fonts like TXT for
> everything, so it's not like they have anywhere to go but up 🙂
Consultants take
> our files and either put everything on a "background" layer and scribble
on top,
> or just change the colors of existing layers to screen it out.
>
> >The only other point I questioned is that I like to position the bottom
left
> >corner of the paper at 0,0,0, while you prefer the same corner of the
border
> >at 0,0,0. What is your reasoning for not using the edge of the paper?
>
> Um.. I don't think we do this. I created our title blocks so that the 0,0
point
> is actually 1-1/4"x3/16" or so from the bottom left hand corner of the
actual
> sheet border on the title block (i.e., the heavy lines). When plotted,
this
> margin combines with the hardware margin to produce a title block
rectangle that
> is positioned on the cut sheet properly, 1-1/2" from the left edge and
1/2" from
> the bottom edge of the cut paper. The title block as well as the component
> blocks that make up a formatted sheet are always based on WCS 0,0,0. It
all
> plots out fine. And I don't have to set up any "standard margins" in the
Plot
> dialog, which would eventaully get screwed up by users.
>
> Looking over this really lame HTML page, I can see where the Word-HTML
> conversion really screwed up. Headers aren't included, so when I go from
one
> section to another there's nothing to announce it. I need to update the
original
> doc, split it up into chapter files, then import them to and HTML framed
set of
> pages, to make navigation easier. As it is, it's a total mess.
>
> Thanks for reading!
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
>
Message 13 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Sorry Matt, I should have known better than to think that you might not have
thought it through. I just prefer to keep the same format for all layer
names thats all.

Dave Alexander

"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:2ur1huo530hlrvcg4hil0dm832hi9ivu77@4ax.com...
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand your point...If I want to rename a
layer
> from "new" to existing, it's as trivial as renaming "A_*" to "AE_*"
(whether the
> "new" is there or not does not matter).
>
> If there is both New and Existing content in the file, which needs to all
be
> Existing, then moving the "new" stuff to the corresponding "existing"
layer is
> equally trivial; in fact I have several macros which move stuff from any
"new"
> layer to "existing" and/or "demo"
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:51:22 -0700, "Dave Alexander"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> For example, I've never understood why someone would label something
as
> >> "New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is
New.
> >And
> >> most architectural work is dealing with New anyway, so it's just one
more
> >thing
> >> you don't have to deal with.
> >
> >We use N for "new" (which is the default) because then it means all of
our
> >layer names have the same "properties" which means we can manage our data
> >with the same macros in the same way. We can change entities from N
layers
> >to E (existing) simply by selecting them or what ever.
> >
> >You are right that most architectural work is dealing with new in that
even
> >in a renovation, you are adding "new" . However, if you have the new
built
> >into your layer names, you can easily change the "new" from the exiting
cad
> >drawing to "existing". I know you can also rename, but that only works
with
> >the first renovation to a new building. Once you have "new" and
"existing"
> >you can not rename.
> >
> >Dave Alexander
> >
>
Message 14 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt's system also has the advantage of new layers showing at the top of the
layer list rather than the bottom.

Dan


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:2ur1huo530hlrvcg4hil0dm832hi9ivu77@4ax.com...
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand your point...If I want to rename a
layer
> from "new" to existing, it's as trivial as renaming "A_*" to "AE_*"
(whether the
> "new" is there or not does not matter).
>
> If there is both New and Existing content in the file, which needs to all
be
> Existing, then moving the "new" stuff to the corresponding "existing"
layer is
> equally trivial; in fact I have several macros which move stuff from any
"new"
> layer to "existing" and/or "demo"
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
Message 15 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I find that on my computer I can sort either ascending or descending in
alphabetical order, by simply clicking on the header for the layer names.

Jack

"Dan Allen" wrote in message
news:4F6462CA23BF156C1BC43D86ED3DE7CB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Matt's system also has the advantage of new layers showing at the top of
the
> layer list rather than the bottom.
>
> Dan
>
>
> "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> news:2ur1huo530hlrvcg4hil0dm832hi9ivu77@4ax.com...
> > I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand your point...If I want to rename a
> layer
> > from "new" to existing, it's as trivial as renaming "A_*" to "AE_*"
> (whether the
> > "new" is there or not does not matter).
> >
> > If there is both New and Existing content in the file, which needs to
all
> be
> > Existing, then moving the "new" stuff to the corresponding "existing"
> layer is
> > equally trivial; in fact I have several macros which move stuff from any
> "new"
> > layer to "existing" and/or "demo"
> >
> > Matt
> > mstachoni@comcast.net
> > mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
> >
>
>
>
Message 16 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

>"Dan Allen" wrote in message
>news:4F6462CA23BF156C1BC43D86ED3DE7CB@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

>> Matt's system also has the advantage of new layers showing at the top of
>> the layer list rather than the bottom.

'zactly!

>I find that on my computer I can sort either ascending or descending in
>alphabetical order, by simply clicking on the header for the layer names.

True, if you use the Layer dialog box, but having layers already sorted is great
for the toolbar menu drop down 🙂

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
Message 17 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:22:46 -0700, "Steve Stafford"
wrote:

><"New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is New.
>
>Hear Hear....I've often thought this aloud as well.

..And I always thought "NEWW" to designate "new work" was even more inane 🙂

I mean, "new" is bad enough, but another letter for "work?"

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
Message 18 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I agree that NEWW looks odd. The reason must be to conform to the 4 letter
format. Sometimes it gets tough to think of what that 4th letter ought to
be. In fact, just thinking of the most correct 4 letters that makes sense
to the most number of people, is tough enough.

Sometimes thinking itself is not worth the effort.

Jack

"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:plk3hu0odaesgf0lqir5pa4v9d7p9n7udi@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:22:46 -0700, "Steve Stafford"

> wrote:
>
> ><"New" when, if it isn't "demo" or "existing" then it, by default, is
New.
> >
> >Hear Hear....I've often thought this aloud as well.
>
> ..And I always thought "NEWW" to designate "new work" was even more inane
:)
>
> I mean, "new" is bad enough, but another letter for "work?"
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
Message 19 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt... Awesome work on the manual and thanks a bunch too!!

Ciao!
~Terry

Rich Mathews wrote:

> Thank you for sharing this. It is superb!
>
> Rich Mathews
>
> "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> news:fjuugu4ui7omcsakkkgn5cqqg76echkhdu@4ax.com...
> > Rich,
> >
> > I recently dug out our CAD manual and plopped it on our Intranet, which
> I've
> > made available to the public. It's not pretty, and some of it's out of
> date, but
> > you can find it at http://cad.beyerdesign.com/cad/bai_stds.htm.
> >
> > It has our basic file management system and workflow documented.
> >
> > Matt
> > mstachoni@comcast.net
> > mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
Message 20 of 20
tstorzuk
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt,

 

I know I'm a few years late, but is it still possible to get a copy of your old standards?

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report