<"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
>
>