standard text size 1/8 or 3/32?

[Anonymous]

The environment:

Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2. Of
the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated drafter/designer,
the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our projects
are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our clients
range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of local
government entities.

The question:

Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is my
understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be microfilmed
must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings and
we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32 but
when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation marginal,
and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the standardization
issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Mike Weaver
Charles Bettisworth & Co.

[Anonymous]

Here Here! I totally agree. We use Romans.shx for everything, except for
plan titles, detail titles, etc. And, I'm an architect. I can't understand
why someone would want a CAD drawing to LOOK like something other than what
it should be: a clear, quick, accurate, reliable way to convey information.
That whole hand lettering look was really developed to allow people who had
to hand letter a way of acheiving a similar look to their lettering.
Imparting a stylized architectural look to it balanced legibility and a
natural stroke that was a combination of single-stroke gothic lettering
(kinda like a Leroy) and traditional hand printing. It was/is an attempt to
standardize a legible "font" that could be repeated by many drafters with a
pencil and some paper. Now that we have keyboards that more legible
"single-stroke" gothic is more easily achieved with much greater legibility
and consistency- so why would one really want hand lettering with a CAD
system? (Unless to match legacy hand-drafted existing drawings...)

Just my two cents,

Robert


"Daniel Wells" wrote in message
news:MPG.163fa68e3e7cd20b989684@discussion.autodesk.com...
> In article , lafleur@dennisgrp.com says...
> > I work mostly on P&ID's, piping and electrical drawings. My personal
preference is for 3/32" for general text, with 1/8" reserved for equipment
names, titles and the like. I MUCH prefer text width set at .8,
aesthetically and for practical purpose of fitting better almost everywhere.
ALSO, hate, hate, HATE architectural fonts for readability and reproduction
reasons. Sure, they look nifty on the full-size originals, but I've run into
more problems with
> readability...

> > Oh, and except on architectural drawings, they just look goofy. We are
an ENGINEERING firm primarily. Our drawings are really unlikely to end up in
an architectural museum somewhere. Pet peeve, blowing off steam...
> >
> As and architect and somewhat of a technology "geek" I have found the
> "architectural" fonts somewhat "silly." I mean why go through all the
> trouble of making a CAD drawing text look like jagged hand lettering.
> It is computer generated, use a font that is clear and readable. I have
> to show our firm that the "hand" fonts were slowed down regeneration
> before they would consider changing (some years ago when r12 was new).
> Thanks for blowing a little steam and giving me a chance to vent as
> well.
>
> Dan Wells A.I.A.
> Director of IS
> MHTN Architects, Inc.
> Salt Lake City, Utah.

[Anonymous]

I asked around the office for opinions about the handwritten look..
One of the main reasons for using it was so that if you had to make a minor addition or correction.. it didn't look to bad to hit it with a pen and/or eraser.

M

[Anonymous]

We make even minor corrections on the CAD files.
The problem with doing things by "hand" is that if they don't get picked up on
the CAD drawings, you won't have accurate CAD drawings...so rather than drafting
those minor changes twice, just do it on CAD the first time.

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"Miguel" <miguel@zianet.com>
wrote in message
href="news:f08b557.20@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f08b557.20@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

I
asked around the office for opinions about the handwritten look..
One of
the main reasons for using it was so that if you had to make a minor addition
or correction.. it didn't look to bad to hit it with a pen and/or eraser.

M