CAD Managers

CAD Managers

Reply
*Weaver, Mike
Message 1 of 23 (2,492 Views)

standard text size 1/8 or 3/32?

2492 Views, 22 Replies
10-10-2001 12:55 PM
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:smileywink:.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Mike Weaver
Charles Bettisworth & Co.
*Stachoni, Matt
Message 2 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re: standard text size 1/8 or 3/32?

10-10-2001 10:43 PM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
We use 3/32".

I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid issue. The
problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for general
documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of space. I am
currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced the
original bldg. docs used 5/64."

I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than the size.
If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems. We use
an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's at half
size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered, since
when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.

However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the text
heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation. Half
size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used in lieu
of full size docs for building purposes.

Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets, usually
requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the field under
bad lighting conditions.

In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument will go
away someday.

I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any to
use 3/32".

Matt
mstachoni@home.com
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com


On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
wrote:

>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:smileywink:.
>
>Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Mike Weaver
>Charles Bettisworth & Co.
>
>
*Furman, Paul
Message 3 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re: standard text size 1/8 or 3/32?

10-10-2001 11:32 PM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
I've always used 1/10" (just a nudge bigger than 3/32 & the math is easier). CAD
lettering is much neater than hand lettering so it can afford to be smaller. You
use all upper case right?

Mike Weaver wrote:

> Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both.
*Weaver, Mike
Message 4 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-11-2001 12:18 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
>>I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any
to
>>use 3/32".

LOL
*Weaver, Mike
Message 5 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-11-2001 12:21 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
Yes, all upper case.
It sounds like the microfilm argument is a non-issue. The last time I
worked in the oil and gas industry (1992), all of the drawings were being
archived on film.

Thanks for the input, Paul.


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
news:3BC5AD84.50AE616B@edgehill.net...
> I've always used 1/10" (just a nudge bigger than 3/32 & the math is
easier). CAD
> lettering is much neater than hand lettering so it can afford to be
smaller. You
> use all upper case right?
>
> Mike Weaver wrote:
>
> > Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both.
>
*hontz, phil
Message 6 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-11-2001 03:47 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
We use 1/10 also..


Paul Furman wrote:
>
> I've always used 1/10" (just a nudge bigger than 3/32 & the math is easier). CAD
> lettering is much neater than hand lettering so it can afford to be smaller. You
> use all upper case right?
>
> Mike Weaver wrote:
>
> > Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both.
*Grandmaison, Robert
Message 7 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-11-2001 05:49 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
We actually use 1/12. (AutoCAD typically displays that as 3/32" based on
your units display.)

1/12 works numerically well for most plan work- at 1/4"=1'-0" it's 4"
tall...1/8"=1'-0" means 8" tall.

Scale factor Text Size
1 1/12
4 4/12 = 1/3
8 8/12 = 2/3
12 12/12 = 1
16 16/12 = 1-1/3
24 24/12 = 2
32 32/12 = 2-2/3
48 48/12 = 4
64 64/12 = 5-1/3
96 96/12 = 8
128 128/12 = 10-2/3
192 192/12 = 16
240 240/12 = 20
360 360/12 = 30


etc, etc.

Robert Grandmaison


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:js7bst0pdklll5ogqekufjvvv33459sr0c@4ax.com...
> We use 3/32".
>
> I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid issue.
The
> problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for general
> documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of space.
I am
> currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced
the
> original bldg. docs used 5/64."
>
> I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than the
size.
> If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems.
We use
> an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's at
half
> size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered,
since
> when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.
>
> However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the
text
> heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation.
Half
> size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used
in lieu
> of full size docs for building purposes.
>
> Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets, usually
> requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the field
under
> bad lighting conditions.
>
> In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
> distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument
will go
> away someday.
>
> I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any
to
> use 3/32".
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"

> wrote:
>
> >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:smileywink:.
> >
> >Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Mike Weaver
> >Charles Bettisworth & Co.
> >
> >
>
*Weaver, Mike
Message 8 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-11-2001 06:02 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.

Mike

"Robert Grandmaison" wrote in message
news:E7B1F7385D1A0BB0A01E49C95F8C2606@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> We actually use 1/12. (AutoCAD typically displays that as 3/32" based on
> your units display.)
>
> 1/12 works numerically well for most plan work- at 1/4"=1'-0" it's 4"
> tall...1/8"=1'-0" means 8" tall.
>
> Scale factor Text Size
> 1 1/12
> 4 4/12 = 1/3
> 8 8/12 = 2/3
> 12 12/12 = 1
> 16 16/12 = 1-1/3
> 24 24/12 = 2
> 32 32/12 = 2-2/3
> 48 48/12 = 4
> 64 64/12 = 5-1/3
> 96 96/12 = 8
> 128 128/12 = 10-2/3
> 192 192/12 = 16
> 240 240/12 = 20
> 360 360/12 = 30
>
>
> etc, etc.
>
> Robert Grandmaison
>
>
> "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> news:js7bst0pdklll5ogqekufjvvv33459sr0c@4ax.com...
> > We use 3/32".
> >
> > I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid
issue.
> The
> > problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for
general
> > documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of
space.
> I am
> > currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced
> the
> > original bldg. docs used 5/64."
> >
> > I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than
the
> size.
> > If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems.
> We use
> > an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's
at
> half
> > size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered,
> since
> > when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.
> >
> > However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the
> text
> > heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation.
> Half
> > size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used
> in lieu
> > of full size docs for building purposes.
> >
> > Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets,
usually
> > requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the
field
> under
> > bad lighting conditions.
> >
> > In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
> > distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument
> will go
> > away someday.
> >
> > I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as
any
> to
> > use 3/32".
> >
> > Matt
> > mstachoni@home.com
> > mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >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:smileywink:.
> > >
> > >Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> > >Mike Weaver
> > >Charles Bettisworth & Co.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
*Stachoni, Matt
Message 9 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-11-2001 11:20 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:02:08 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
wrote:

>Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.

With all due respect to Robert, it's not simpler or more effective. More
convenient to memorize, perhaps. But by going with an irrational number
(0.8333333 decimal) instead of a simpler "whole" fraction, you basically ensure
that at every UNITS setting you're having AutoCAD rounding off the actual text
height for the scales like 3/8"=1'-0" and 3/4"=1'-0".

Which is deadly if you have users who see the rounded off number and enter that
in for a text height instead of the "official" x/3 text height.

Compare Robert's 1/12" scaled heights

Rounded value
w/LUPREC=1/16
Scale Text Ht (AutoCAD's default)

> 1 1/12 1/16"
> 4 1/3 5/16"
> 8 2/3 11/16"
> 12 1
> 16 1-1/3 1-5/16"
> 24 2
> 32 2-2/3 1-11/16"
> 48 4
> 64 5-1/3 5-5/16"
> 96 8
> 128 10-2/3 10-11/16"
> 192 16
> 240 20
> 360 30

(Notice that AutoCAD reports round off error of up to 1/16", e.g. 4x => 5/16"
vs. 8x =>11/16" instead of 10/16").

To using a slightly larger fraction 3/32":
> 1 3/32
> 4 3/8
> 8 3/4
> 12 1-1/8
> 16 1-1/2
> 24 2-1/4
> 32 3
> 48 4-1/2
> 64 6
> 96 9
> 128 12
> 192 18
> 240 22-1/2
> 360 33-3/4

Where every text height is "actual" and real, and users can be assured that what
AutoCAD reports back to them as being fractional text heights are true.

Now, knowing Robert, I'm sure he has this all customized to a point where his
people don't have to worry about entering text heights (I strongly encourage
taking such potentials for error - like entering text heights - out of the hands
of users). However, I am also very uneasy about setting height standards that
cause such round off to occur. Even when LUPREC is set to 1/256", as in my
office, it has the potential for causing problems.

Matt
mstachoni@home.com
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
*Grandmaison, Robert
Message 10 of 23 (2,492 Views)

Re:

10-12-2001 12:35 AM in reply to: *Weaver, Mike
Matt,

I agree, it's not any simpler except for the most commonly used scales we
draw at (where text is either 4" or 8" high). When I teach my autocad
classes I encourage my students to use a default text height of 1/10" so the
math is REALLY easy.

And you're right. My users NEVER have to set their text height. They just
click a button and AutoCAD does all of that for them.

The only problem I have with using 3/32" is that the text is just a tad too
small. We often get clients who complain about our 1/12" high text. If we
went to one that was 3/32" in height I know we'd have even more complaining
from those clients who already complain about it. Text too big though looks
clumsy to me. I don't like a default height of 1/8". Can't get enough text
on a sheet/detail and it looks somehow amatuerish.

Robert

"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:smileysurprised:gjcst8tu0tk8talak3k3kg2ef7im1a8te@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:02:08 -0700, "Mike Weaver"

> wrote:
>
> >Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.
>
> With all due respect to Robert, it's not simpler or more effective. More
> convenient to memorize, perhaps. But by going with an irrational number
> (0.8333333 decimal) instead of a simpler "whole" fraction, you basically
ensure
> that at every UNITS setting you're having AutoCAD rounding off the actual
text
> height for the scales like 3/8"=1'-0" and 3/4"=1'-0".
>
> Which is deadly if you have users who see the rounded off number and enter
that
> in for a text height instead of the "official" x/3 text height.
>
> Compare Robert's 1/12" scaled heights
>
> Rounded value
> w/LUPREC=1/16
> Scale Text Ht (AutoCAD's default)
>
> > 1 1/12 1/16"
> > 4 1/3 5/16"
> > 8 2/3 11/16"
> > 12 1
> > 16 1-1/3 1-5/16"
> > 24 2
> > 32 2-2/3 1-11/16"
> > 48 4
> > 64 5-1/3 5-5/16"
> > 96 8
> > 128 10-2/3 10-11/16"
> > 192 16
> > 240 20
> > 360 30
>
> (Notice that AutoCAD reports round off error of up to 1/16", e.g. 4x =>
5/16"
> vs. 8x =>11/16" instead of 10/16").
>
> To using a slightly larger fraction 3/32":
> > 1 3/32
> > 4 3/8
> > 8 3/4
> > 12 1-1/8
> > 16 1-1/2
> > 24 2-1/4
> > 32 3
> > 48 4-1/2
> > 64 6
> > 96 9
> > 128 12
> > 192 18
> > 240 22-1/2
> > 360 33-3/4
>
> Where every text height is "actual" and real, and users can be assured
that what
> AutoCAD reports back to them as being fractional text heights are true.
>
> Now, knowing Robert, I'm sure he has this all customized to a point where
his
> people don't have to worry about entering text heights (I strongly
encourage
> taking such potentials for error - like entering text heights - out of the
hands
> of users). However, I am also very uneasy about setting height standards
that
> cause such round off to occur. Even when LUPREC is set to 1/256", as in my
> office, it has the potential for causing problems.
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post
Announcements
Manufacturing CAD & IT Manager Resource
Additional information for installing, licensing & deploying Inventor, the Product Design Suites and Factory Design Suites.