Looking for feedback on a hybrid monochrome CTB setup

[cabralesandy98]

Hi everyone, I’m building a CAD standards package (trying to, but it is very difficult, and a little scary) and I’m trying to finalize the CTB setup before I lock everything in. I'm planning to use monochrome.ctb, but I’m still figuring out the best way to structure the color and lineweight system, so it stays simple and consistent. I posted a question the other day and received great help! And though, as stupid of a question it might be, would this approach even work?

Right now, I’m considering a hybrid approach. The idea is to use colors 1–10 for normal black linework, each tied to a specific lineweight, and then use colors 250–255 for screened grayscale items like existing conditions, backgrounds, and underlays. Layers would still control lineweights, and the CTB would only handle black vs gray output.

For example, in my current layer setup (with just layers and lineweights) I have interior walls on yellow at 0.25 mm, exterior walls on color 20 at 0.35 mm, furniture on color 201 at 0.13 mm, and plumbing fixtures on color 140 at 0.18 mm. If I switch to the 1–10 and 250–255 system, I’d need to remap these layers to the new color scheme while keeping the same lineweight hierarchy. Is that even allowed? I know every person and firm and discipline is different, but my fear is that it is isn't accepted or is far from what most have done themselves.  

Has anyone used a setup like this for architectural drawings? Is this a good balance between simplicity and flexibility, or am I making it more complicated than it needs to be? I’m trying to keep things easy while still allowing for screening and a clean architectural look.

So what I have so far is I have some lineweights already, can you tell me what you think? For my custom .ctb, I have color 1 (Red) set at 0.10mm, color 2 (yellow) set at 0.18mm, color 3 (green) set at 0.15mm, color 4 (cyan) set at 0.25mm, color 5 (blue) is set at 0.15mm, color 6 (magenta) is set at 0.35mm, color 7 (white) is set at 0.05mm, color 8 (gray) is set at 0.10mm, color 9 (gray) is set at 0.13mm, and red-ish (color 10) is set at 0.10mm. So magenta is thick line, cyan is medium line, yellow is thin line, red is superfine line, and green is dashed line.

But, it just looks... weird, and not so good. Sorry if it sounds confusing or like a mess. I initially came from a structural drafting background, where there were no line weights as our layers and colors dictated how it would look plotted. For example, green was the thickest, yellow was medium and red was the thinnest, so our walls were green and if we needed to do an existing, not new wall, it would be 252 or 251. But I'm no longer a structural drafter, and now part of a discipline that does things differently. It's just intimidating, really. There is this blog, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to take inspiration from it instead? AIA Layering Standards for CAD Drawings | CAD / CAM Services, INC. 

But there is this one, too, but again its so complicated because everyone has a specific way of deciding what layers, what line weights, what .ctb or .stb setup they use, and I just don't want to get it wrong, or for it to look inconsistent. And, so, there is this blog that provides a general direction, but it is also different and I am completely lost. https://dougseidler.com/lesson/autocad-standard-layer-names-floor-plans/ 

Any feedback or examples would be appreciated.

[paullimapa]

First of all, I commend you for attempting to create this new ctb standard.

I think your attempts to make this change really depends on the following:

1) how much control you're given to enforce this standard 

2) how comfortable are staff to change

Next, I've reorganized your color line weight categories just for more clarification on my part as the following:

color 7 (white) is set at 0.05mm,

Superfine
color 1 (Red) set at 0.10mm,
color 10 (red-ish) is set at 0.10mm,
color 8 (gray) is set at 0.10mm,

color 9 (gray) is set at 0.13mm,

Dashed
color 3 (green) set at 0.15mm,
color 5 (blue) is set at 0.15mm,

Thin
color 2 (yellow) set at 0.18mm,

Medium
color 4 (cyan) set at 0.25mm,

Thick
color 6 (magenta) is set at 0.35mm,

Screened grayscale

colors 250–255 

Since colors can bring about a visual association with line thickness on the screen as one draws I do have the following comments/questions:

1) Since you only mentioned Superfine as 0.10mm, what's the purpose of color 7 (white) which is set to even thinner at 0.05mm?

2) For Superfine when would you use color 1 vs 10 (which are both reddish) vs 8 (which is gray)?

3) Why are you designating a single color in this case green set at 0.15mm for dashed lines?

Do you plan to only use this thickness for this kind of linetype?

What about center lines, or grid lines or other linetypes?

4) Since you're using 250-255 for grayscale screening, is there a reason to not include colors 8 & 9 which are also part of the grayscale color spectrum?

5) Since the current color setup is drastically different for example cut lines like wall lines (interior=yellow 0.25 mm & exterior=red 0.35 mm), how would the staff respond to now seeing these on the screen as color 4 (cyan) at 0.25mm and color 6 (magenta) at 0.35mm?

6) FYI: Yellow is hard to see on white background and Blue is hard to see on a black background

[cabralesandy98]

I really appreciate you responding. I'm pulling my hair here, and just need a bit of clarity. 

1) how much control you're given to enforce this standard 

• It's starting from scratch, really. I'm tasked with setting it all up. So it all falls on me. I want to get it right the first time, or near close so it avoids any issues down the road and can be easily adjusted or reworked to correct any mistakes.

2) how comfortable are staff to change

• As far as I know... there isn't any staff. Not yet. It is a start up, so just me? But I don't want to make it convoluted either, and too messy where it doesn't make sense or it comes off as I'm not totally flexible. Like I just want to ensure it can be scalable, works across disciplines and everyone feels comfortable.

Magenta makes sense to be the thickest layer, but I had a question. I come from a structural drafter background, so the standard that was set up used something where there were no line weights, no thickness, instead the colors itself dictated the thickness. So when I would plot, our walls (new walls were green, and existing walls were 251-252) and windows were in the 250 range, and so on, it would appear as green is the thickest, compared to red and yellow with yellow being medium and red being the thinnest. That wouldn't make sense here, correct? Since it is a completely different discipline? I'm not sure my hybrid approach (only 10 colors: 1-10) makes sense. 

For your questions:

1) Color 7 was reserved for ultra‑fine graphics, so things that should appear on the sheet but never compete with primary linework. The examples that come to mind include: hatch patterns, tile grids, ceiling grids, minor detail lines, fill textures and background annotation. And, so, 0.05 mm is intentionally very light so these elements don’t overpower the drawing. It’s not part of the “superfine” 0.10 mm group, though, in hindsight is a bit confusing.  It was supposed to be a separate ultra‑fine category.

2) Originally, I had multiple colors at 0.10 mm, but that’s exactly why I’m refining the system. In a clean 1–10 ladder, each color should represent a unique weight.

So the updated approach I had set up in my mind was that the color 1 uses 0.10 mm (primary superfine), then color 8 uses 0.09 mm (slightly lighter) and lastly color 10 uses 0.13 mm (slightly heavier). This was supposed to remove duplication and create a predictable progression. I guess I failed at that. In other words, each color now has a distinct purpose and weight.

3) Dash was supposed to be a linetype, not a lineweight. So instead of tying dashed lines to a single color, the updated system I would hope does a dashed demo using a thin weight (0.13–0.15 mm), dashed overhead uses a medium weight (0.18–0.25 mm), centerlines uses a very thin (0.13 mm), and gridlines use a thin or medium depending on the scale. The color no longer dictates the linetype. The object dictates the weight, and the linetype is applied separately. I think this is more flexible and more architectural.

4) Because in this system I was hoping to create, but it turned out to be a bit messier than I had hoped, the colors 1-10 were going to be my black lineweights, and the colors 250-255 were going to be my grayscale tones. This separation was intended to keep things organized and clean, but again I'm not sure I succeeded at all. So 1–10 are my weight hierarch, and 250–255 are tone hierarchy. If 8 and 9 were used for grayscale, they would lose their place in the weight ladder. Keeping grayscale isolated to 250–255 avoids confusion and makes the CTB easier to maintain. But I think your suggestion actually makes a bit more sense.

5) It's just me, so yeah adjusting from what I have and the new template... it is a bit jarring. Maybe it is not a good idea to use the layers and colors I have?

6) Completely true, but this is exactly why the new system avoids relying on yellow for major layers and blue for major layers. But I'm not sure my system would work anymore.

The new 1–10 palette uses red and green, cyan, magenta and even gray. These are all highly visible on both black and white backgrounds? I think. So this concern is already addressed in the updated system. At least I hope.

[paullimapa · Accepted solution]

I don't see a need to stay with your 1-10 palette especially when you're telling me that you don't plan on using yellow (2) or blue (5) but only red (1), green (3), cyan (4), magenta(6) & gray(8 & 9).

My opinion is to not drop color yellow since I've worked at an Architectural firm that was very comfortable with using color yellow to represent cut lines like walls. This just means a white or even light grayish background will not be used but instead a black background.

You can even keep color blue. Though harder to see on a black background, it can still be used to represent extra superfine lineweights.

Actually looking at AutoCAD's built-in 255 Color selection window invoked by entering command Color:

You'll see the following sequence selection on the lower left hand corner of a 1-9 palette and then 250-255 palette:

Perhaps you may want to drop your color 10 (which is reddish and similar to color 1) and just go with colors 1-9?

[cabralesandy98]

I really appreciate the response and the help!

In your opinion, would it make sense to drop layer 10? Since there are already two reds in the set, adding another might be redundant.

Alternatively, I’m considering completely reworking layers 1–9. For example, using a more consistent system where maybe it makes sense to have cyan stay reserved for text, red is used for dimensions, and magenta, green, or yellow are used for walls (new or existing, interior or exterior). Another possibility is using cyan for fixtures and furniture instead. I still need to evaluate what would work best. 

With that in mind, how would you allocate the layers and colors using my hybrid approach with layers 1–9 along with 250–255? I’m trying to figure out what arrangement makes the most sense. I realize different firms use different standards, but I’m aiming to find a solid middle ground. And it's far more difficult than I originally anticipated.

[paullimapa]

Actually you can even go with colors 1 to 7 which already covers all color family spectrum of red, yellow, green, cyan, blue, magenta, and white 

You may also do a google search to see what industry standards that are already assigned for these colors by doing a google search for “cad color standards”

[cabralesandy98]

Ok, my hair has fallen out just enough for the day because I've been on this for days, all day actually. I have an updated version, hopefully it makes way more sense. I ended up taking some of your suggestions, like ditching color 10 because I'm not sure what to even designate that color for. Maybe down the road I'll figure something out, but for now, it's not going to be used. 

For walls, I keep things straightforward. Red (color 1) is the color for all new walls. It does not matter if they are interior or exterior, or even if they are being demolished. If it is a new wall element, it stays red. That keeps the category clean and easy to recognize. Yellow is the counterpart for existing walls when I want a single existing category. If I need more detail, I split existing walls into two grays (8 and 9), but the basic idea is that red means new and yellow means existing.

Green (color 3) is what I use for anything that is being removed or anything that is hidden or overhead. Demo doors, demo windows, hidden lines, overhead casework, all of that goes green. It separates demo work from new work without adding more wall colors.

Cyan (color 4) is my annotation color. All text, dimensions, leaders, tags, and door swings live there. It is a medium weight, so it reads clearly without overpowering the architectural linework. It also keeps all annotation unified, which helps when scanning a sheet. Then I have the color blue (5), which along with 7-9, were a hassle to implement and is the color for furniture, casework, and identifiers. Anything that is not a wall but still part of the architectural layout goes blue. Furniture outlines, casework, room tags, door tags, ceiling IDs, and light IDs all stay in that color. It is thin enough to stay out of the way but still visible.

Magenta (color 6) is my heavy profile color. That is the one I reserve for cut lines and strong profiles. Sections, details, floor cuts, and structural cuts all use magenta. I never use it for walls themselves, only the cut edge. It gives the drawings a clear hierarchy without confusing the wall colors. At least that is what I'm aiming for, and it might end up looking wonky.

For windows, I keep everything unified under one color. White (color 7) is my glazing system. Frames, mullions, sills, jambs, glass outlines, and window depth lines all stay in white at a very thin weight. It keeps windows clean and subtle so they do not compete with the walls.

For existing walls (and, this is the part that I might have to refine a bit more because I wasn't sure how to utilize these two layers, so I based it off my old job at a structural engineering firm), when I want more detail than just yellow, I use two grays. Dark gray (8) is for existing interior walls, and a slightly lighter gray (9) is for existing exterior walls. It gives me a clear visual separation without introducing new wall colors. It also helps when working on renovation projects where you need to show what is staying without letting it dominate the drawing. All hatches, poche, and material fills live in the grayscale range from 250 to 255. That keeps the fills neutral and consistent, and it prints cleanly in monochrome. It also keeps the focus on the linework instead of the patterns. 

Hopefully it makes sense, but as far as I know this is probably a near complete version. What do you think?

[paullimapa]

Seems like you have your logically method of assigning colors to objects drawn.

Try implementing this color scheme on a couple of real construction drawings like plans vs elevations and see how everything really looks on the screen and then go from there.

[cabralesandy98]

From what I have, is there anything that stands out that you think I should review further? I do plan on applying these layers and colors into a project, and see how it translates (fingers crossed it works well). But I feel like I am somehow missing something, or still off.

[paullimapa]

I think the next step is implementation. That’s the best way to give yourself feedback if this method actually works for you.