hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file. Why is that “stupid” and this not??
Comparing the unnecessary exploding of dimensions to the necessity of making a workable 2D file out of an unworkable 3D file is senseless.
Stepping on an unworkable file makes it a flat unworkable file, and there are folks on this forum that have offered equally "valid" reasons for exploding dimensions. I disagree with both concepts. If you choose to use "flat" garbage carry on, however, I see little advantage over 3D garbage.
Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.
Doing what we do is less work than re-working client drawings into viable 3D. Please quit trying to make more of it than that.
Drawing plans and then sections and then elevations, is an unnecessary duplication of effort.
Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”. If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.
No it takes a good deal of care to make it safe. Flattening is just the first step there.
Unless you're going to physically check EVERY element in the file (see the sample Joe provided), at some point you're relying on data supplied from what you already know is a questionable source. That's a bad bet.
If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally? Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate?? That’s a bad bet.
I don't "rely" on anything I don't have to. I make it as accurate as necessary. I'd like to have better clients, but I don't get to pick the clients. Lucky for you, if you do.
If they provide cr4p, I'll rebuild it completely from scratch and bill them for it... or get a complete release of ALL liability for the accuracy of the design.
You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner?? You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of such an untenable file.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.
You said you'd been drawing elevations for thirty years, did you not? We can go back a few posts and check if you want? Some dozen years ago it became quite easy to view 3D models in elevation, making it no longer necessary to "redraw" the very same data for each elevation. Adhering to the ways of the past would fall quite comfortably under the Luddite flag.
You say it's a good idea, I say it's a bad idea; such is life is it not? Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.
Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.
Your claim that the concept is a good idea is based solely on the drawings you use, just as my claim that the concept is a bad idea is based on the drawings I use. Are they not equally valid for our frames of reference?
