TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: craigr on September 25, 2007, 02:14:55 PM
-
I wasn't sure what to put for a 'Topic', but..
Here at our company, all of us, that use AutoCad, MUST understand and be able to do some part of engineering to do our jobs. We have no one that just 'draws'. In other words, everyone must know electrical circuits, how HVAC systems work, etc..
I was discussing the 'AutoCad world' at lunch with a coworker and the question came up - Are there AutoCad jobs out there that you could simply hire someone straight out of an AutoCad class and they could do the job?
(I hope you understand what I am trying to ask.)
craigr
-
The electrical guy down the hall hires people for just that.
All they do is redlines. He doesn't care they know what they are typing, they just have to do it. He writes up the design and they do the power plan on top of a floor plan, the lighting plan...
I've talked with his main, full time, drafter... and... he's very very clueless about anything electrical. He has no idea what he's drawing, he just knows the habits he is in.
The engineer says it works for him and is all he needs for drafters.
-
Cad Monkeys.
I've worked for lots of companies that do just that. Enjuneers that have little to no drafting experience that red-line drawings, then give it to Cad Monkey, who in turn does the corrections, then highlights the redlines (this a good way to keep track) with yellow highlighter, then plots the drawings, and gives back to E$njuneer with original redlines. I used to be a Cad Monkey, now I'm more of a Cad Gorilla.
-
Craig,
That's about what I am, or what I started out as. I took two ACAD classes at the local junior college and got hired on at a civil/structural firm to work with MicroStation and Geopak. I didn't know doodly-squat about anything we engineer here and still have a hard time with stuff - right now I'm working on a roadway plan, my next task is some bridges/culverts, I've been known to dabble in some electrical, HVAC, and process plumbing as well (although most of my work is in the roadway/structural world). It's been a bumpy road - I've had to learn quite a few new 'languages' since I started here 18 months ago. But I (think I) learn fast, and I'm not afraid to ask questions. With the help of some construction site visits, I'm understanding more and more of the 'whys' of what I'm depicting.
There are certain parts of the roadway plans that engineers do (attempt to) draft, so we have quite a few MS users that don't understand a thing about how the program works or how to fix (or finesse) its quirks. That's where I come in 8-)
-
that's what i started doing here, taking the action (change diagrams) and incorporating the changes into the wire diagram manuals.... don't have to know anything about anything except how to draft.
-
So far, I am VERY surprised by the answers.
Doing 'CAD Monkey' work, doesn't it get very boring after awhile?
What I love about my job is that I often have to figure things out, then draw them. It makes the day challenging.
craigr
-
I don't think I would survive as a CAD Monkey... or at least if I didn't think it would eventually lead me to explore my creative/design/problem-solving side more.
The people I run in to that are mindless CAD Monkey's are doing so to work their way up.... or they are just the types that work to live, not live to work, and just want to maintain a paycheck.
-
Zombie CAD, as I call it. We often do a lot of that, but we also get some of the jobs where we'll get a bill of materials and are told "build me a panel with that stuff in it".
Both have gotten old and are getting older as we speak.
-
I'm another of the "cad monkeys"
I've been doing it for more years than I care to remember. Even tho I have no formal engineering training, it doesnt take long to question/query things that an engineer brings over that "dont look quite right"
I wouldnt change the job I do for anything.
Oh, and one of the great things about being a cad monkey... when one discipline slows down, its easy to jump into another :-)
-
Guess thats another reason to love my job. We do custom millwork, paneling and the like, but there is no "engineer", a person has to be able to figure whats going on and make sure it works. There is nothing mindless to any of our drawings. We have folks to QC, but that usually is for call out numbers, references and the like. Its considered a pretty bad thing to draw something that cannot be built, and thats all the way down to the entry level folks. The only worse offense is overriding dimensions. :pissed:
-
I'm a Cad Monkey also. I wouldn't want to do what the engineers have to do here, too much paper work. One way I stimulate my gray matter is by coding. That has been pretty much self taught, with help here and there by smart people wherever I can find them (like here @ theswamp!). As long as you are willing to put in the time to learn, there are always ways to grow within your job, profession ... life in general.
-
<snippety snip>...Doing 'CAD Monkey' work, doesn't it get very boring after awhile?
In my experience, this leads to other related careers, Cad/CAM, Cad Management, Data Management, Programming, just to name few, so it's a basic spring board for lanching into the wonderful world of creating things with technology.
If you get bored, that is.
-
<snippety snip>...Doing 'CAD Monkey' work, doesn't it get very boring after awhile?
In my experience, this leads to other related careers, Cad/CAM, Cad Management, Data Management, Programming, just to name few, so it's a basic spring board for lanching into the wonderful world of creating things with technology.
If you get bored, that is.
In no way did I mean to offend anyone. Some people don't like to be challenged all day long and others do. Nothing wrong with either, it's just a matter of preference.
Again, I didn't mean to offend and apologize if I did.
craigr
-
I started out as a Cad Monkey right out of school, working for a contract company that did work for the local utility. All we did was create or fix drawings (both Cad and manual drafting). Every drawing was estimated with the least one 15 minutes. I soon became so fast and so accurate, that I could take as many breaks as I wanted and still be ahead of the game. When they decided I had reached the maximum they could pay, I applied at the utility that we did work for (after all I had experience now). I had automated everything (remember digitizers?) at this contract company specifically for this kind of work. The utility snapped me up very quickly, that was almost 13 years ago.
Besides everyone has to start somewhere. :-)
-
<snippety snip>...Doing 'CAD Monkey' work, doesn't it get very boring after awhile?
In my experience, this leads to other related careers, Cad/CAM, Cad Management, Data Management, Programming, just to name few, so it's a basic spring board for lanching into the wonderful world of creating things with technology.
If you get bored, that is.
I had a good love for CAD/CAM work, but man... as much as programming is interesting to me (the results and ideas) I just can't bring myself to do it. I'm just not the right kind of geek for that. Which is odd, because I don't mind sitting and hand writing G-Code to get a machine to run a part. You'd think one would be ok with the other, if they're good with one.
It's strange because:
G1,0,0,0,15
G13,6500
G60,13,0,0,25
G14
G0,13,0,5
G11
makes much more sense to me (though I feel like I botched some of the variable inputs, but I think I still remembered the Gxx commands right) than a LSP string does.
-
<snippety snip>...Doing 'CAD Monkey' work, doesn't it get very boring after awhile?
In my experience, this leads to other related careers, Cad/CAM, Cad Management, Data Management, Programming, just to name few, so it's a basic spring board for lanching into the wonderful world of creating things with technology.
Around here its entry level. We hire "fresh out of school" folks and they begin to learn design, construction, fabrication, transportation, etc. for the particular discipline into which they've entered (Civil, Piping, Electrical, Instrumentation, Structural, Architectural, etc.). They aren't "CAD monkeys" for long.
-
I think fresh out of school yes I was a CAD Monkey. Getting redline drawings and fixing them.
Now I am a 3D modeling guru. I don't just model I design. Features here, curve here, this looks like it will make the product better or we can save some material if we do it this way. Then the ENG directs us if the design is strong enough or needs beefed up or other ENG suggestions.
-
<snippety snip>...Doing 'CAD Monkey' work, doesn't it get very boring after awhile?
In my experience, this leads to other related careers, Cad/CAM, Cad Management, Data Management, Programming, just to name few, so it's a basic spring board for lanching into the wonderful world of creating things with technology.
If you get bored, that is.
In no way did I mean to offend anyone. Some people don't like to be challenged all day long and others do. Nothing wrong with either, it's just a matter of preference.
Again, I didn't mean to offend and apologize if I did.
craigr
Absolutely no offense taken. :-)
I was just spouting out about my experiences.
-
At our shop there just isn't room for a fresh from school CAD person. We have a designer (myself), one field crew refugee (swamp member momurry - who is getting married this Saturday) who is main duty is to become as proficient as I am asap and one engineer who wants us to to do as much of the design work as possible so he can . . . well, just because. Our software can do at least 3/4 of the line work for our drawings while it is being designed so one must learn what he is doing in very quick order lest he just be mostly in the way.
-
We tried hiring a 'CAD Monkey', (I like that term), and the experience was HORRIBLE!!!!
This guy said he had taken a couple of classes of CAD in college, but I swear I had to show him how to do everything. And often had to show him how to do it multiple times. They hired him to take some of the load off of me. I was told he was to 'do the drawing part' of my job. The problem ended up being that I was spending more time explaining & fixing his dwgs that if I did the work myself. After 6 months, we finally had to let him go because he was costing us more than he was making us. He was a very nice guy, I would like to have kept him, but he just didn't know enough to be a benefit to us & wasn't catching on.
So we are looking for another guy to help out, but this time I hope they let me in on the interviewing.
For those of you that don't know me, our dwgs are 2D only. HVAC line dwgs with electrical circuits. Our projects move pretty fast & we can't spend a bunch of time on dwgs. I think the actual drawing part is pretty simple. We don't come close to using the full capabilities of AutoCad, and we use LT!
Thanks for the replies. I have a somewhat different view of the CAD world than I did before posting this topic.
craigr
-
I think most of the CAD users start out as cad mokeys. After a couple of months or days , I think you move one to the next stage in the monkey's evolution.
But some guys never gets past the CAD monkey stage. Especialy the monkeys who change the txt.shx of Standard font to Romans and stupid stuf like that...
-
Especialy the monkeys who change the txt.shx of Standard font to Romans and stupid stuf like that...
To be frank, I think that's a great example of the petty stuff that just holds people back from getting real work done.
-
But you're not Frank, you're Josh. :?
-
As you can imagine I see herds of various cad animals in my classes. In some instances the cages are open and the animals are of too many species to count. In other locations, the stripes might tend to the same color and pattern. All along there are those that get the state of the software, and evolve to use tools, to wear khakis and Polo's, and leave the world or red lines behind. In many ways the state of the product is such that a small properly trained and motivated team can do far more with fewer hands on mice. In some instances there will always be room for some intern level position with cad. However, as time goes by those low order operations will mostly be gone away.
Herein lies the kicker, the users must be trained, and they need a uniform introduction to the tools. It does little good if, one or two folks attack this thing head on. I once hired four guys at that were right out of some cad school, and three did quite well, and the other had no aptitude for civil. The reason behind hiring them was they would have no bad habits, and would know cad, the civil stuff we could teach them.
As I see it the smarter the hand pushing that mouse around the higher your profit margin.
-
Good point
We do mechanical and I say I am ok with Autocad. But to have the knowledge of field you are working in goes a long way. I can model a die cast housing pretty well. But put me on something civil and have me draw contour lines for lands and bridges and my productivity goes out the window until I figure out what the heck I am drawing and why.
-
But some guys never gets past the CAD monkey stage. Especialy the monkeys who change the txt.shx of Standard font to Romans and stupid stuf like that...
?? and the problem with that is.... what?
-
I am a CAD "design drafter"....I work with engineering to design our systems. I don't have the education to handle the engineering side...flow rates, pressure curves etc.... but I DO have the knowledge and ability to create an operating system from their specifications. It's up to me to determine the size/type of structural steel to handle the equipment mounted on our units. It's also my job to create a sensable layout of those components, one that handles all of the process equipment and piping within specified design criteria. I feel that if you have a hand in the design decisions of whatever dicipline you work in, you are more than a "CAD monkey". I guess that makes me a "Design Monkey" huh? :roll:
This is an enlightening post...interesting to see how we all view ourselves "in the scheme of things".....
-
But some guys never gets past the CAD monkey stage. Especially the monkeys who change the txt.shx of Standard font to Romans and stupid stuff like that...
?? and the problem with that is.... what?
If you copy from a drawing where the standard font have been changed and paste the copied part into a drawing where the standard have not been changed, the text ends up looking horrible. And it happens a lot when more then one company is working on something.
It is better to create a unique name for your text styles.
A monkey thinks he is saving time, but a cad user who has evolved from the monkey stage, know that the fastest way is not always the right way.
-
The same goes for dimensions styles
-
Then maybe you should realize the problem lies in using names like "Standard" for obviously customized fonts and styles :)
People who've evolved past the "monkey" stage know how styles work when there is a coincidence of names.
-
Then maybe you should realize the problem lies in using names like "Standard" for obviously customized fonts and styles :)
People who've evolved past the "monkey" stage know how styles work when there is a coincidence of names.
Our Company intials are 'CSI', so anything I modify / create I start the name with CSI - such as 'CSI_Security'. This is simple to do and takes no extra time. This way, when I or anyone else opens a dwg, they know which items we modified / created.
craigr
-
Then maybe you should realize the problem lies in using names like "Standard" for obviously customized fonts and styles :)
People who've evolved past the "monkey" stage know how styles work when there is a coincidence of names.
Our Company intials are 'CSI', so anything I modify / create I start the name with CSI - such as 'CSI_Security'. This is simple to do and takes no extra time. This way, when I or anyone else opens a dwg, they know which items we modified / created.
craigr
Exactly. If you named your custom stuff "Standard" then anyone you copied your stuff into someone else's drawing, or any drawing without those same customizations... it'll simply take on the properties of the drawing you paste into.. not the source.
We do it a similar way. We label all of ours after our company name as well, sometimes with clarification like you do, if there're multiples. Text styles like CASE-RomanS, CASE-RomanD, etc...
-
But some guys never gets past the CAD monkey stage. Especially the monkeys who change the txt.shx of Standard font to Romans and stupid stuff like that...
?? and the problem with that is.... what?
If you copy from a drawing where the standard font have been changed and paste the copied part into a drawing where the standard have not been changed, the text ends up looking horrible. And it happens a lot when more then one company is working on something.
Then don't do that... or is that too easy??
It is better to create a unique name for your text styles.
Better?? ... for whom??
A monkey thinks he is saving time, but a cad user who has evolved from the monkey stage, know that the fastest way is not always the right way.
Those of us unrelated to monkeys know that the right way is always faster.
-
When wouldn't it be better to create unique Text Styles names?
Or anything non-standard.
craigr
-
When wouldn't it be better to create unique Text Styles names?
Better for what?? We routinely re-font style Standard, and have done so without issue for a couple of decades. If it's going to be there, why not use it? And our text looks "right" even if a contractor inadvertently used style Standard.
-
Well, as an outsourcer I can tell you its horrible to work with for us, not with text style, but with other things, like ctb files. I have clients that have modified monochrome.ctb. So we either edit that ctb for him alone, and mess up any other client that uses that ctb, or we leave his unmodified, and never actually see his drawings as he will.
For drawing defined things, thats ok, but for things that are in the actual nuts and bolts cad setup, editing any defaults is bad in my book.
-
When wouldn't it be better to create unique Text Styles names?
Better for what?? We routinely re-font style Standard, and have done so without issue for a couple of decades. If it's going to be there, why not use it? And our text looks "right" even if a contractor inadvertently used style Standard.
Better so that everything is clear to anyone that opens a dwg that may not be accustom to how your company does things.
I caught onto the unique naming thingy several years ago, while working on dwgs that another company had passed to me to use. It was very helpful to understand what they were doing & easier to figure out how to handle their non-standard ways.
I have even worked on a project that several companies worked on the same dwgs & it was mandated that any new layers, etc... must have the company initials at the front of their layer names. - Very nice.
Admittedly, I tend to be obsessive about things being neat & tidy and very easy to work with whenever possible.
I HATE what I would call 'sloppy' work. If everyone would do their drawings the way I want them, then my world would be MUCH easier. :-D
craigr
-
Another point, and this happens to us often enough. We get a template from a client to work with, and they have reset standard to some oddball font. Well our font alt looks ok as we work and have NO IDEA its wrong. So we send the drawings, next thing we have a client on the phone yelling about how the text is all wrong. Never mind sending us the fonts you need us to use.
This happens with dimstyles and textstyles often enough that when setting up a new client I almost refuse to set up things unless they use e-transmit to send me the template and such.
-
When wouldn't it be better to create unique Text Styles names?
Better for what?? We routinely re-font style Standard, and have done so without issue for a couple of decades. If it's going to be there, why not use it? And our text looks "right" even if a contractor inadvertently used style Standard.
Don't you guys do everything in house?
-
This happens with dimstyles and textstyles often enough that when setting up a new client I almost refuse to set up things unless they use e-transmit to send me the template and such.
I'm that way any time I get drawings from most architects. I usually wait until I open a drawing, and take a look to see if any fonts or shape files were substituted for. If there is ANYTHING with substitutions or any fonts that are not standard with Windows or Autocad, I generally call and ask if they know of etransmit and if they'd send me the file with all attachments, like you said. One client chewed me out for wasting time. I sent him our drawings hoping everything was right and fine, and the architect calls me back complaining because now we're at the deadline and we're going to have to waste time reprinting because we didn't use the right font, which was something special one of his guys made, named after their company. Man, if only someone would have had the foresight to ask for that font up front :roll:
Anyways... I digress.
-
Well, as an outsourcer I can tell you its horrible to work with for us, not with text style, but with other things, like ctb files.
Why is that a problem? We frequently build to client standards, what's the problem?
I have clients that have modified monochrome.ctb. So we either edit that ctb for him alone, and mess up any other client that uses that ctb,
Ya know, directories and profiles are wonderful things, check 'em out.
For drawing defined things, thats ok, but for things that are in the actual nuts and bolts cad setup, editing any defaults is bad in my book.
What is a "nuts and bolts cad setup"?? I've worked with AutoCAD for a long time and I've never seen one of those. In fact the beauty of AutoCAD is NOTHING is a "nuts and bolts cad setup", everything can be custom fit to a user.
-
Heh, had something even more silly once. A cad manager instructed me to explode, and I kid you not, all dimensions and hatch (after making sure they were on the zero layer). This went into the standard (I double checked three times on the phone and got email verification twice!)
They went along this way for about 4 years before the cad manager called up saying we didn't need to do it that way anymore. Apparently the guys that took the drawings and had to clean them up for CNC had been running overbudget for the entire time (imagine that!) but he couldn't quite swallow his pride enough to change the standard. :lmao:
-
............
(http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/Maverick/fishing.gif)
:-D
-
When wouldn't it be better to create unique Text Styles names?
Better for what?? We routinely re-font style Standard, and have done so without issue for a couple of decades. If it's going to be there, why not use it? And our text looks "right" even if a contractor inadvertently used style Standard.
Better so that everything is clear to anyone that opens a dwg that may not be accustom to how your company does things.
Anyone working on our files for the duration of the contract are keenly aware of how we do things. After we turn 'em over to the client, it's his file. Re-fonting style Standard in that file should not be an issue.
I caught onto the unique naming thingy several years ago, while working on dwgs that another company had passed to me to use. It was very helpful to understand what they were doing & easier to figure out how to handle their non-standard ways.
Unique is okay until it bloats the file with numerous styles that are the same except the name. Seems counter productive, doesn't it?
I have even worked on a project that several companies worked on the same dwgs & it was mandated that any new layers, etc... must have the company initials at the front of their layer names. - Very nice.
So you needed a road map to isolate the steel on the project??
I HATE what I would call 'sloppy' work. If everyone would do their drawings the way I want them, then my world would be MUCH easier. :-D
And what is sloppy about changing the font of style Standard to Romans??
-
Well, as an outsourcer I can tell you its horrible to work with for us, not with text style, but with other things, like ctb files.
Why is that a problem? We frequently build to client standards, what's the problem?
I have clients that have modified monochrome.ctb. So we either edit that ctb for him alone, and mess up any other client that uses that ctb,
Ya know, directories and profiles are wonderful things, check 'em out.
For drawing defined things, thats ok, but for things that are in the actual nuts and bolts cad setup, editing any defaults is bad in my book.
What is a "nuts and bolts cad setup"?? I've worked with AutoCAD for a long time and I've never seen one of those. In fact the beauty of AutoCAD is NOTHING is a "nuts and bolts cad setup", everything can be custom fit to a user.
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher. We *could* go to all full, but that is a very pricey option to upgrade 15 seats to full. We only maintain one seat of full on subscription. LT is very nuts and bolts that way, it can be customized to a very large extent, but on the fly changes to that are a BIT more tricky. :-)
-
Another point, and this happens to us often enough. We get a template from a client to work with, and they have reset standard to some oddball font. Well our font alt looks ok as we work and have NO IDEA its wrong. So we send the drawings, next thing we have a client on the phone yelling about how the text is all wrong.
Then you used style Standard for something?? Why?
BTW, we will NOT use a font that does not come with AutoCAD, neither will our contractors.
-
When wouldn't it be better to create unique Text Styles names?
Better for what?? We routinely re-font style Standard, and have done so without issue for a couple of decades. If it's going to be there, why not use it? And our text looks "right" even if a contractor inadvertently used style Standard.
Don't you guys do everything in house?
oh I wish. We do dictate standards however, and sometimes a contractor will use an old block with attributes, that uses style Standard. That's not a problem for us because we routinely change the font of Standard to Romans.
-
Because their textstyle in the dimstyle is set to standard, and the textstyle "standard" is sometimes set to some oddball textfont. We don't go changing a clients dimstyle, it tends to make them unhappy.
-
............
fishing
:-D
I think one got away though....
-
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher.
LT doesn't use profiles?? ... and kills the ability to use client directories?? sheesh, tough program.
-
Because their textstyle in the dimstyle is set to standard, and the textstyle "standard" is sometimes set to some oddball textfont. We don't go changing a clients dimstyle, it tends to make them unhappy.
??? then it shouldn't be a problem sending it back to them. I'm missing something here.
-
We gets whats we pay for. And since I don't sign the checks thats what I have to work with.
We do pretty good considering though, we manage to maintain customized routines for about 12 different clients and all it takes is changing workspaces. If I had full for all my drafters I wouldn't know what to do with all my free time! Of course I would probably forget everything I know about diesel, wouldn't that be heartbreaking.
-
Because their textstyle in the dimstyle is set to standard, and the textstyle "standard" is sometimes set to some oddball textfont. We don't go changing a clients dimstyle, it tends to make them unhappy.
??? then it shouldn't be a problem sending it back to them. I'm missing something here.
Are you having fun? :-D
Not all clients take the dwg files, some only want dwfs back. No it doesn't make sense, but we have a number like that. Its not so bad when they send you samples, but we get some that never send us an example of the drawings, so it is some detective work to figure out what the heck they are doing. I imagine you have a cad standard/samples and such you give to subs, but often we don't have that luxury. Kinda like target shooting in a room with the lights off.
-
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher.
LT doesn't use profiles?? ... and kills the ability to use client directories?? sheesh, tough program.
Nope, no profiles. Pieter showed me how to edit the registry to set the Support Files, which made installs much easier, but you only get one "unnamed" profile to work with.
It's why you typically find small shops using LT -- too inefficient for the big guys.
-
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher.
LT doesn't use profiles?? ... and kills the ability to use client directories?? sheesh, tough program.
Nope, no profiles. Pieter showed me how to edit the registry to set the Support Files, which made installs much easier, but you only get one "unnamed" profile to work with.
It's why you typically find small shops using LT -- too inefficient for the big guys.
HEY, we may be small, but inefficient?!? :x
-
Because their textstyle in the dimstyle is set to standard, and the textstyle "standard" is sometimes set to some oddball textfont. We don't go changing a clients dimstyle, it tends to make them unhappy.
??? then it shouldn't be a problem sending it back to them. I'm missing something here.
Are you having fun? :-D
Always do.
Not all clients take the dwg files, some only want dwfs back. No it doesn't make sense, but we have a number like that. Its not so bad when they send you samples, but we get some that never send us an example of the drawings, so it is some detective work to figure out what the heck they are doing. I imagine you have a cad standard/samples and such you give to subs, but often we don't have that luxury. Kinda like target shooting in a room with the lights off.
okay, now see, you've confused me again. If you're NOT sending the CAD files it makes NO difference at all what font you use for style Standard, so what's the beef??
-
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher.
LT doesn't use profiles?? ... and kills the ability to use client directories?? sheesh, tough program.
Nope, no profiles. Pieter showed me how to edit the registry to set the Support Files, which made installs much easier, but you only get one "unnamed" profile to work with.
It's why you typically find small shops using LT -- too inefficient for the big guys.
HEY, we may be small, but inefficient?!? :x
Not you, but LT. And I must agree.
-
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher.
LT doesn't use profiles?? ... and kills the ability to use client directories?? sheesh, tough program.
Nope, no profiles. Pieter showed me how to edit the registry to set the Support Files, which made installs much easier, but you only get one "unnamed" profile to work with.
It's why you typically find small shops using LT -- too inefficient for the big guys.
HEY, we may be small, but inefficient?!? :x
Don't get all worked up, we use LT too. :) And yes, the installation & maintenance process is much less efficient for LT than for full. Once you're up and running, it's fine.
-
:-D
OK, let me give an example.
I have one client who sent us a template to work from. It had the text issue and the ctb issue we were talking about. The ctb we can live with, the drawings just plot a bit odd because we don't have his lineweights. BUT, as we had no sample drawings, just the lone template, and his standard text style.. well wasn't, we did not know it was not working correctly. The font he actually used was wider then our fontalt. So all our text in revision clouds and such bled over if you had the right text font. They never mention that the text is not right when checking the drawings we sent.
One or two jobs go by with them getting dwf files and thats fine. Next job comes up and they are making the countertops in house so they want cad files instead. Well when they plot the drawings, since they HAVE the font, it comes out all messed up.
Is it a strange set of circumstances, yes very. Is it the only time things like that have happened, nope, not at all.
-
You ideas are valid with one teensy problem. We use LT, and that makes it a wee bit tougher.
LT doesn't use profiles?? ... and kills the ability to use client directories?? sheesh, tough program.
Nope, no profiles. Pieter showed me how to edit the registry to set the Support Files, which made installs much easier, but you only get one "unnamed" profile to work with.
It's why you typically find small shops using LT -- too inefficient for the big guys.
HEY, we may be small, but inefficient?!? :x
Don't get all worked up, we use LT too. :) And yes, the installation & maintenance process is much less efficient for LT than for full. Once you're up and running, it's fine.
Its all good, I don't use smileys when I am really mad!
As for installing and such, oh yeah. I have installing customization down to about 3 minutes though now.
-
:-D
OK, let me give an example.
I have one client who sent us a template to work from. It had the text issue and the ctb issue we were talking about. The ctb we can live with, the drawings just plot a bit odd because we don't have his lineweights. BUT, as we had no sample drawings, just the lone template, and his standard text style.. well wasn't, we did not know it was not working correctly. The font he actually used was wider then our fontalt. So all our text in revision clouds and such bled over if you had the right text font. They never mention that the text is not right when checking the drawings we sent.
One or two jobs go by with them getting dwf files and thats fine. Next job comes up and they are making the countertops in house so they want cad files instead. Well when they plot the drawings, since they HAVE the font, it comes out all messed up.
Is it a strange set of circumstances, yes very. Is it the only time things like that have happened, nope, not at all.
That's a FONTALT issue and an issue with not receive a custom font and has nothing at all to do with re-fonting the style Standard. Had he created another style with the wacky font, you'd have the very same issue.
-
:-D
OK, let me give an example.
I have one client who sent us a template to work from. It had the text issue and the ctb issue we were talking about. The ctb we can live with, the drawings just plot a bit odd because we don't have his lineweights. BUT, as we had no sample drawings, just the lone template, and his standard text style.. well wasn't, we did not know it was not working correctly. The font he actually used was wider then our fontalt. So all our text in revision clouds and such bled over if you had the right text font. They never mention that the text is not right when checking the drawings we sent.
One or two jobs go by with them getting dwf files and thats fine. Next job comes up and they are making the countertops in house so they want cad files instead. Well when they plot the drawings, since they HAVE the font, it comes out all messed up.
Is it a strange set of circumstances, yes very. Is it the only time things like that have happened, nope, not at all.
That's a FONTALT issue and an issue with not receive a custom font and has nothing at all to do with re-fonting the style Standard. Had he created another style with the wacky font, you'd have the very same issue.
Ok this fish came back to bite.
The main issue I have with using the name "Standard" is that whenever anyone pastes in tables, blocks, dimensions, or anything that reads from a style... and the style names overlap but have different definitions from the source to the destination... the stuff gets screwed up. That's all there is to it.
If I use Standard, and paste my stuff into a clients template, and they use Standard, but defined it their way... all my stuff will take on their attributes and can lead to conflicts, alignment issues, and a bunch of other crap that can be a real hassle, INCLUDING times when we HAVE all their funky wacky architect fonts.
-
Your right, doesn't make it any less annoying. It also will tend to mask the issue if Standard, be it text style, dimstyle, whatever is modified. Yeah, we should catch everything inconsistant in a clients drawings to see what they forgot to send us, but sometimes its a bit hard to pick up on, especially when the client does not have a written standard, no sample drawings, and uses very... well lets just say creative ways to get things done. Creativity is fine, but please document it.
-
If I use Standard, and paste my stuff into a clients template, and they use Standard, but defined it their way... all my stuff will take on their attributes and can lead to conflicts, alignment issues, and a bunch of other crap that can be a real hassle, INCLUDING times when we HAVE all their funky wacky architect fonts.
Then THAT is an arguement NOT to use style Standard, and a point with which I might agree. It has nothing at all to do with re-fonting it.
-
:-D
OK, let me give an example.
I have one client who sent us a template to work from. It had the text issue and the ctb issue we were talking about. The ctb we can live with, the drawings just plot a bit odd because we don't have his lineweights. BUT, as we had no sample drawings, just the lone template, and his standard text style.. well wasn't, we did not know it was not working correctly. The font he actually used was wider then our fontalt. So all our text in revision clouds and such bled over if you had the right text font. They never mention that the text is not right when checking the drawings we sent.
One or two jobs go by with them getting dwf files and thats fine. Next job comes up and they are making the countertops in house so they want cad files instead. Well when they plot the drawings, since they HAVE the font, it comes out all messed up.
Is it a strange set of circumstances, yes very. Is it the only time things like that have happened, nope, not at all.
That's a FONTALT issue and an issue with not receive a custom font and has nothing at all to do with re-fonting the style Standard. Had he created another style with the wacky font, you'd have the very same issue.
Ok this fish came back to bite.
The main issue I have with using the name "Standard" is that whenever anyone pastes in tables, blocks, dimensions, or anything that reads from a style... and the style names overlap but have different definitions from the source to the destination... the stuff gets screwed up. That's all there is to it.
If I use Standard, and paste my stuff into a clients template, and they use Standard, but defined it their way... all my stuff will take on their attributes and can lead to conflicts, alignment issues, and a bunch of other crap that can be a real hassle, INCLUDING times when we HAVE all their funky wacky architect fonts.
Thats another issue I didn't even begin to get into. You tack that on to all the other things and you can get some amazingly messed up drawings, and often no idea they are wrong until the client is yelling at you.
-
It also will tend to mask the issue if Standard, be it text style, dimstyle, whatever is modified.
What would? A quote back would help, I have a couple of lines going here.
Yeah, we should catch everything inconsistant in a clients drawings to see what they forgot to send us,
Yes you should.
but sometimes its a bit hard to pick up on, especially when the client does not have a written standard, no sample drawings, and uses very... well lets just say creative ways to get things done. Creativity is fine, but please document it.
Require eTransmit-ed files.
-
The main issue I have with using the name "Standard" is that whenever anyone pastes in tables, blocks, dimensions, or anything that reads from a style... and the style names overlap but have different definitions from the source to the destination... the stuff gets screwed up. That's all there is to it.
If I use Standard, and paste my stuff into a clients template, and they use Standard, but defined it their way... all my stuff will take on their attributes and can lead to conflicts, alignment issues, and a bunch of other crap that can be a real hassle, INCLUDING times when we HAVE all their funky wacky architect fonts.
Your issue is with USING style stanadard not re-fonting it. Then don't use it.
-
When they pay the bills, it is often a challenge to "require" that. Now, if they didn't then we may not eat the cost of fixing it, but thats another story.
-
The main issue I have with using the name "Standard" is that whenever anyone pastes in tables, blocks, dimensions, or anything that reads from a style... and the style names overlap but have different definitions from the source to the destination... the stuff gets screwed up. That's all there is to it.
If I use Standard, and paste my stuff into a clients template, and they use Standard, but defined it their way... all my stuff will take on their attributes and can lead to conflicts, alignment issues, and a bunch of other crap that can be a real hassle, INCLUDING times when we HAVE all their funky wacky architect fonts.
Your issue is with USING style stanadard not re-fonting it. Then don't use it.
Well I made the assumption that people refont Standard as an alternative from creating a new one. I figured they were the polar choices for the same question/decision.
-
Several years back, we had a similar issue, where our title block did not look right in one drawing. It took a while to figure out why.
This one had me confused for a bit. Eventually, I tracked it down to the fact that our tech had not started a new drawing from a template, and then used Map or some such technique for pulling in the linework from the "others", the way he was taught. Instead, he took a drawing sent to us by "others", and started turning that drawing into his final product.
The problem cropped up when he inserted our title block. At the time this happened, we used a font called TITLE in our title block. It just so happens that the "others" also used a font called TITLE. When our tech inserted our title block into the drawing that was started by the "others", it used the "other's" version of the TITLE font.
After this little runaround, that particular tech finally realized why I tell them to always start a new drawing from our template. But I also went into our template and renamed all our fonts, so they now all include our company initials, and none of them use common names like TITLE anymore. This was similar to the problems that crop up from using fonts and styles named STANDARD, but was a bit more insidious...
-
When they pay the bills, it is often a challenge to "require" that. Now, if they didn't then we may not eat the cost of fixing it, but thats another story.
Why is it a challenge to to get the files you need to execute the work?? If you don't ask for all the right data, you need to eat the cost for fixing it. As soon as you get a template or a spec that says use style "whatever", the very next question should be "What's the font for that style?" Depending on FONTALT to cover it is a "cad monkey" error.
-
Your issue is with USING style standard not re-fonting it. Then don't use it.
Well I made the assumption that people refont Standard as an alternative from creating a new one.
Others may do just that, however if YOU have an issue with such, don't use that style. Seems like a choice even a "cad monkey" could make without a lot of sweat, doesn't it?
I figured they were the polar choices for the same question/decision.
Not at all. We have no issue using style Standard re-fonted to Romans for how we use it. No matter how anyone else fiddles with it, it will always be Romans for us. But then again we don't use custom fonts at all, and neither do our contractors.
-
<stick-poking smiley>
-
<stick-poking smiley>
<stick-STIRRING smiley>
-
When they pay the bills, it is often a challenge to "require" that. Now, if they didn't then we may not eat the cost of fixing it, but thats another story.
Why is it a challenge to to get the files you need to execute the work?? If you don't ask for all the right data, you need to eat the cost for fixing it. As soon as you get a template or a spec that says use style "whatever", the very next question should be "What's the font for that style?" Depending on FONTALT to cover it is a "cad monkey" error.
You assume we don't ask? :lmao:
Remember, in our case, most of the people are outsourcing not just because they are busy, but also they sometimes do not have the knowledge to make their in-house engineering dept work to any kind of a standard and they work very inefficiantly. If they had things well in hand they probably wouldn't need us to do work for them (if they have drafters on staff anyway, a few don't have cad at all). Most don't know what a standard is (at least until they have worked with us for a while). We VERY frequently end up doing more then just outsourcing, we end up helping the client set up a cad standard for themselves and help them document them so those issues don't crop up again. What is scary is most of them have never been asked the standards related questions we ask and they outsource all the time. It is not unusual at all for them to blow of the requests for the files/fonts/standards and they tell us to proceed without them. Well, when they do that we do NOT eat the cost to fix drawings. It is normal that within a couple of jobs we are then asked to help them set up and document a standard for them. I have trained more then one cad manager from one of our clients engineering departments after they have worked with us for a few years and we show them the time and money they are spending due to not having things documented or standardized.
One thing I tell them is to leave anything that comes with Autocad as "standard", like dimstyle and textstyle alone and create one that is uniquely named. Yeah, you *CAN* modify them to no detriment, but it does increase the chance of something going wrong, so it makes sense not to do it and avoid the issue alltogether.
-
One thing I tell them is to leave anything that comes with Autocad as "standard", like dimstyle and textstyle alone and create one that is uniquely named. Yeah, you *CAN* modify them to no detriment, but it does increase the chance of something going wrong, so it makes sense not to do it and avoid the issue alltogether.
I've had hard times explaining this to some guys. You can re-font the standard style, but at a later stage you are going to have problems. A simple macro does the trick for me.
(command "-style" "BKS RomanS" "RomanS" "0" "0.8" "0" "N" "N" "N")
And avoid names like "title" and "heading" etc. and use the font name in your style name. That makes it easier to see what font you are using.
-
When they pay the bills, it is often a challenge to "require" that. Now, if they didn't then we may not eat the cost of fixing it, but thats another story.
Why is it a challenge to to get the files you need to execute the work?? If you don't ask for all the right data, you need to eat the cost for fixing it. As soon as you get a template or a spec that says use style "whatever", the very next question should be "What's the font for that style?" Depending on FONTALT to cover it is a "cad monkey" error.
You assume we don't ask? :lmao:
If you did, you'd have the right font and there'd be no issue.
Remember, in our case, most of the people are outsourcing not just because they are busy, but also they sometimes do not have the knowledge to make their in-house engineering dept work to any kind of a standard and they work very inefficiantly. If they had things well in hand they probably wouldn't need us to do work for them (if they have drafters on staff anyway, a few don't have cad at all). Most don't know what a standard is (at least until they have worked with us for a while).
You keep talking about "them" and "they", what "they" do matters not at all.
We VERY frequently end up doing more then just outsourcing, we end up helping the client set up a cad standard for themselves and help them document them so those issues don't crop up again.
Then re-fonting style Standard is NO issue.
I have trained more then one cad manager from one of our clients engineering departments after they have worked with us for a few years and we show them the time and money they are spending due to not having things documented or standardized.
One thing I tell them is to leave anything that comes with Autocad as "standard", like dimstyle and textstyle alone
Why?? Its a non-issue.
Yeah, you *CAN* modify them to no detriment, but it does increase the chance of something going wrong, so it makes sense not to do it and avoid the issue alltogether.
if you've trained them as you say you have, re-fonting style standard will not be an issue and CANNOT increase the chance of something being wrong. What WILL increase that chance for erro is assuming that ANYone leaves them alone.
-
One thing I tell them is to leave anything that comes with Autocad as "standard", like dimstyle and textstyle alone and create one that is uniquely named. Yeah, you *CAN* modify them to no detriment, but it does increase the chance of something going wrong, so it makes sense not to do it and avoid the issue alltogether.
I've had hard times explaining this to some guys. You can re-font the standard style, but at a later stage you are going to have problems.
Why?? What problem can possibly occur?? If you use your little macro, style Standard could be Chinese with no ill-effect to your file.
-
One thing I tell them is to leave anything that comes with Autocad as "standard", like dimstyle and textstyle alone and create one that is uniquely named. Yeah, you *CAN* modify them to no detriment, but it does increase the chance of something going wrong, so it makes sense not to do it and avoid the issue alltogether.
And avoid names like "title" and "heading" etc. and use the font name in your style name. That makes it easier to see what font you are using.
Just like everyone else does ;)
-
:lmao: Your right, nothing can go wrong with clients not knowing thier own standard and clients always give you good information when you ask. They never off hand tell you something that in the end is not true (like exploding hatch and dimensions). They never give out of date sample drawings that show how they used to do it, not how they do it now.
Are you guys hiring, I would kill to work in that environment. :-P
-
:lmao: Your right, nothing can go wrong with clients not knowing thier own standard and clients always give you good information when you ask. They never off hand tell you something that in the end is not true (like exploding hatch and dimensions). They never give out of date sample drawings that show how they used to do it, not how they do it now.
Again, "they" "they" "they"... you are responsible for your drawings, not "they".
Are you guys hiring, I would kill to work in that environment. :-P
Yes we are, big time. PM a resume.
-
Well, your right in that we are responsible for what we produce, they just didn't know what they were asking for. If we ask, and get no answer, they are stuck, not us.
As for the resume, thanks but I am pretty happy here, unless you have an office in Gainesville Florida and have a really really good offer :-)
-
Well, your right in that we are responsible for what we produce, they just didn't know what they were asking for. If we ask, and get no answer, they are stuck, not us.
precisely, so re-fonting a style is no issue.
As for the resume, thanks but I am pretty happy here, unless you have an office in Gainesville Florida and have a really really good offer :-)
Well we have really good offers about seven hundred miles due West of Gainesville.
-
That is a bit too far a commute for me, that and the whole Gulf Of Mexico getting in the way.
-
That is a bit too far a commute for me, that and the whole Gulf Of Mexico getting in the way.
If you go North on I-75 about 50 miles to I-10, the Gulf ain't in the way.
-
Well thats no fun then and its definately out.
Heck if I could I would love to take my horse to work, just no where to put her at the office.
Used to take a boat to work, those were some fun times.
Used to work on a boat too, not so much fun.
-
That is a bit too far a commute for me, that and the whole Gulf Of Mexico getting in the way.
If you go North on I-75 about 50 miles to I-10, the Gulf ain't in the way.
You mean you can go AROUND that thing?! shoooooooot gettin' to Orlando just got a lot cheaper!
-
That is a bit too far a commute for me, that and the whole Gulf Of Mexico getting in the way.
If you go North on I-75 about 50 miles to I-10, the Gulf ain't in the way.
You mean you can go AROUND that thing?! shoooooooot gettin' to Orlando just got a lot cheaper!
probably more dry as well
-
Sorry, I have driven I-10, I'll stick to the water. :-D
-
Sorry, I have driven I-10, I'll stick to the water. :-D
not a bad idea...
-
Oh my!
I skipped pages 4,5 and 6.
I'm bet I'm glad I did too.
-
Sorry, I have driven I-10, I'll stick to the water. :-D
Since Katrina I think parts of I-10 are sticking IN the water.