Author Topic: CTB FILES  (Read 11540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AUTOKAD

  • Guest
CTB FILES
« on: March 04, 2008, 08:57:50 AM »
Hi All,

I'm in the architectural/ interior/ industrial design industry. We do from floor plans to millwork details. And I would just like to know your ctb standard lineweights for colored and black and white prints. I just want to know the most common or industry standards. What lineweight to use for red, green, etc. Thanks

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2008, 09:07:14 AM »
The standard is....



everyone makes their own crap up.

There is no prominent standard.

ronjonp

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7180
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2008, 10:56:01 AM »
CTB's! Sorry...couldn't resist  :-D

Windows 10 x64 - AutoCAD /C3D 2020

Custom Build PC

Krushert

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 13610
  • FREE BEER Tomorrow!!
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2008, 11:32:04 AM »
The standard is....



everyone makes their own crap up.

There is no prominent standard.
Josh is right.  It is whatever suits you and your firm.  The one architect that set up the layer names used colors that he like and thus we only use maybe one third of the colors in CTB file.  For each pen weight, there maybe 5 colors that first on his list to chose from.  And we only have 5 pen weights.  I have been slowly tweaking the CTB file and Layering System to give greater flexibility.  When you have four different items all touching each other and they have the same color and line weight leads to a very confusing plot.
I + XI = X is true ...  ... if you change your perspective.

I no longer CAD or Model, I just hang out here for camaraderie

AUTOKAD

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2008, 11:45:26 AM »
Thanks
If I'm not mistaken I've seen a ctb table, showing all the colors and the suggested lineweights to use, in this forum. Or maybe not.

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2008, 11:59:07 AM »
Thanks
If I'm not mistaken I've seen a ctb table, showing all the colors and the suggested lineweights to use, in this forum. Or maybe not.


If you have, it's just one person/company's suggestion and by no means to be considered "right"

One tip I have is that, since you don't really have TOO many different line weights, assign a lineweight to a WHOLE ROW of colors... that way you can pick and choose your colors, can have multiple colors on the screen for clarity, while still having them at the same lineweight if needed.  There are a few things I don't like about this color table, it's merely the one the company already had that I documented a handout for.

Here's ours:

TimSpangler

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2010
  • CAD Naked!!
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2008, 12:16:06 PM »
Mine is set up similar to Josh's  Each line has its own linewight, Named Colors have there own and the Greys are just that Screened.
ACA 2015 - Windows 7 Pro
All Comments and Content by TimSpangler, Copyright 2016

Birdy

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2008, 12:19:21 PM »
FWIW, our "primary" lines are 0.019".  (Just a starting point... which consensus said 'looks fine')
Dimensions plot out 'slightly' thinner.
"Secondary" lines, slightly thinner than dims.
Hatches, same as secondary lines.
Titleblock border. .03" (I think.)
From there, it's been just a matter of adding stuff into the mix as we go.  CAD department consensus over-rules anyone elses.

Totally arbitrary, but has worked for us for 10+ years.
(minor tweaks were made when we ditched the Diazo. :)

sinc

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2008, 04:00:07 PM »

Here's ours:

That one would go "against the grain" for most people we work with.

In general, they always setup their CTBs so that the primary colors are in order of increasing lineweight, i.e. red is lightest and magenta is darkest.

We use STBs ourselves.  Our "primary" lineweight, if we have one, would probably be .014".  We generally avoid using anything less than .006" because those tend to not showup on recorded documents, when we make prints on matte film and take them to the county to be recorded.  Lineweights smaller than .006" tend to be hard to see or invisible on the resulting prints.

Some of our employees used to work for a company that set their "red" to a really thin lineweight, and they had a number of plats recorded before someone realized significant chunks of linework was disappearing on the recorded version of the documents.

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2008, 04:09:45 PM »
Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.



ronjonp

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7180
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2008, 05:16:02 PM »
Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.




Keep in mind that if you use scale line weights when you plot, you do not have to have different CTB's for full and half.  8-)

Windows 10 x64 - AutoCAD /C3D 2020

Custom Build PC

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2008, 05:16:37 PM »
Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.




Keep in mind that if you use scale line weights when you plot, you do not have to have different CTB's for full and half.  8-)

Try telling that "new" trick to the old dogs here.

CmdrDuh

  • Automatic Duh Generator
  • King Gator
  • Posts: 4039
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2008, 05:18:25 PM »
Are you color blind?  That was not meant as an insult but a legitimet question.  I have 2 older/wiser drafters that cant see certain colors, so we adjusted our ctb to accomodate our staff.  Dark blue and dark magenta were eliminated from the scheme b/c they faded into the background color (before you say change the background color, this was before that was an option).  Now its been to many years with too many drawngs to change it now.
Everyone has a photographic memory, Some just don't have film.
They say money can't buy happiness, but it can buy Bacon and that's a close second

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2008, 05:31:04 PM »
Are you color blind?  That was not meant as an insult but a legitimet question.  I have 2 older/wiser drafters that cant see certain colors, so we adjusted our ctb to accomodate our staff.  Dark blue and dark magenta were eliminated from the scheme b/c they faded into the background color (before you say change the background color, this was before that was an option).  Now its been to many years with too many drawngs to change it now.

Me?

If so, no.  Why do you ask?  Though we shy away from the colors that sort of fade away from a black BG, I use them intentionally so for non-plotting layers so that the eyes can easily ignore those lines and focus on the main drawing.

CaddmannQ

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 1327
  • Leadsled
Re: CTB FILES
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2008, 08:46:55 PM »
We use a sort of "color family" system for the ctb.

Grey (color 8 or something close to color 8 ) is the lightest weight or .003"
Violets/magenta=.006"
Reds/pinks = .009"
yellow/orange/brown/all "earth tones" = .014"
all greens = .018
cyan & all blues = .024"
all purples = .030"
white = .042"

In truth, we use at most 3 standard colors in any given family, but if someone wants to use more they are available according to those rules.

Anything wider is done with a wide polyline and the color is usually according to the medium width color in the respective category (keep reading.)

Layers are assigned a two-part name.

First part is a single letter and is a category desnigator:
B for beams
C for columns
N for notes
H for hardware, etc.
(there are 12 standard categories and the user can make up more as needed)

Second part is the line width designators:
E=extra-extra light. =003"
LE=extra light=.006"
L=light=.009"
M=medium=.014"
H=heavy=.018"
X=extra heavy=.024"
XX=double extra heavy=.030"
XXX=triple extra heavy=.042"

For instance, I would draw a heavy beam on the plan on layer BH, and a really heavy beam or girder on BX or even BXX.

XXX is used almost exclusively for section cut lines, or match lines, or heavy borders, and usually as NXXX ("note triple extra heavy".)

I can type any layer name I want with a few strokes, but the layer name doesn't tell you what the hell you're really looking at like an AIA layer name does. When we look at the drawings we have to know WTH we're looking at, and there are always notations so other people can tell anyway. (You just don't put something on a structural drawing without calling out what it is.)

I don't have to deal with names like "A_wall_remodel_type3_above", and I never have to resort to dialog boxes to set or change layer names; and when I started this system we didn't have no stinkin' dialog boxes anyway.  :-D