Topic: NCS in Practice, not theory

[mjfarrell]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because the make you 'buy in' to the standard. 

That has always been my opinion on standards.  If you have to PAY what kind of standard is it?

Most  ANSI and ISO standards are only available for a fee.  Not sure if anything from ISO.org is free.  The NCS cost is not that high, but do bear in mind that it also include Uniform Drawing System from CSI, and is not just layer names.  there's a lot more to UDS than just the pages from Sandia Labs http://www.sandia.gov/engstds/StdDwgs/UDS_Numbering_Drawings.pdf

Spoken like a representative of the NCS

Just because those other organisations charge doesn't indicate that is the only model that works.
Well I suggest they try giving it away and notice how much higher the adoption rate is over the fee based plan.

[cadtag]

I also found that it was very "old-school"...  e.g., it still thinks in terms of layers and CTBs.  These days, we use Civil 3D Styles and STBs, and it all seems so quaint...

The current NCS does not include CTB style color to pen mapping, and instead proposes standardized line weights, ranging from X-FINE to XXX-THICK.  Hence adaptable to either a color table or named style approach.  Part of the NCS goal is to be vendor neutral - whether you are using an Adesk product, a Bentley product, an Intellicad flavor, or Ares as your CAD platform. 

Complex Objects and stylization are useful, but do not always readily translate to alternate platform, or between veticals and base applications (c3d to vanilla), or even versions of the same vertical software (C3d2009 to c3D2007).  Layers/levels seem to be fairly universal concepts between cad and drawing engines.

[Dinosaur]

So what do you propose Civil 3D users do to implement these standards?  I personally would pay a lot of money just to watch some poor schmo try to hammer an existing Civil 3D style template into (working) NCS standards.  Dibs on the concession rights to that event.

[mjfarrell]

and therein lies part of the rub.....adesk issues what they claim is a(n) NCS compliant DWT.

COOL,  until there is no accompanying documentation explaining said standard's implementation, that one could then logically extrapolate and extend the standard to ones own practice.


Gee, thanks!   I think?   

[cadtag]

Participant maybe, not a representative.  Bearing in mind that participation can be broadly defined, and the process is pretty open.

I tend to agree that distribution would be wider with  a free version, and would personally prefer seeing the NCS documentation released under the GNU FDL (Free Documentation License).  I think we are all aware of derivative versions, from Harvard University to National Parks Service to A/E/C to NavFac.  Each group adopting/adapting the systems tailors it to their own requirements, be it large or small.  It would be nice to see the forks acknowledging their source and expanding on that relationship.

C3D & NCS -- It's an interesting topic (and I'll note that my employer is not going the NCS route with C3D, not even the partial implementation Adesk rolled out.  They elected to roll their own -- opinion on that effort is my own.)   Lessee -- lineweights work, grayscales -- not enough in NCS IMHO, Uniform Drawing System sheet  & file naming, works reasonably well albeit missing any idea of a profile or cross section sheet.  Linetype -- mehh- but Autodesk and the other vendors have such a poor implementation of linetypes that it hardly matters, Layering.... that seems to be the sticker.

I think (and I am not a c3d guru - just poked around the edges to date) that the first problem is that the NCS guys are predominantly coming from the architecture and building systems world, so their grasp of civil drawings is limited.  The defined major groups are not necessarily that great a fit for civil work.  The AIA is no longer the head organization behind NCS, it's now under the umbrella of the National Institute for Building Science.  Again though, bricks, mortar, and MEP - not asphalt and storm drainage areas.

The second problem, and I'm not sure about this one, is that the NCS tends to look at things more from a `builders' point of view as they break things down.  the C3d "corridor" really isn't a thing that a contractor builds - it's a design tool for designers to design with.  So there's a break there?  Is the c3d approach to modeling an effective way to communicate construction information, or is there a better methodology?  I dunno....  I've read several rants over the years about the parcels being horribly borked, and find the collaborative/data sharing techniques to be .... not well thought out. 

The third thing is that civil drawings tend to be hellishly complex.  The civil drawings I do are invariably more cluttered than any other discipline I deal with - much more so than the plant or building drawings, with a lot more going on.  And a lot of the information on the drawings is only marginally relevant to the construction stage that the drawing is supposed to communicate.  We show overhead electrical on sidewalk plans, but does it really matter where the wires go? 

And to repeat myself, the process is pretty much open to whomever wants to participate.   

[Bob Wahr]

I tend to agree that distribution would be wider with  a free version, and would personally prefer seeing the NCS documentation released under the GNU FDL (Free Documentation License).  I think we are all aware of derivative versions, from Harvard University to National Parks Service to A/E/C to NavFac.  Each group adopting/adapting the systems tailors it to their own requirements, be it large or small.  It would be nice to see the forks acknowledging their source and expanding on that relationship.   

You've got the relationship just a bit twisted.  NCS is derivative of A/E/C,  not the other way around although a/e/c has made changes to keep in compliance with changes to the NCS since.

[Draftek]

We have just recently adopted a 'modified' version of the NCS for layer names.

We will see how the enforcement goes in a couple of weeks when I deploy it officially.

[Jassper]

The third thing is that civil drawings tend to be hellishly complex.  The civil drawings I do are invariably more cluttered than any other discipline I deal with - much more so than the plant or building drawings, with a lot more going on.  And a lot of the information on the drawings is only marginally relevant to the construction stage that the drawing is supposed to communicate.  We show overhead electrical on sidewalk plans, but does it really matter where the wires go?

It matters when the contractor places a driveway in the wrong location because they ignored the electrical pole locations. The elec has to be spaced so far apart... now there are two outcomes... beg the city/town/state/county to give a variance on the elec pole requirements or have the contractor rip out and  repour the driveways in the proper location.

There is a good reason for having that much information on the civil dwgs. The key is knowing which drawings you are looking at and that we always accomplished by highlighting the specific area the plan shows and shading back everything else. So much for standards on civil plans...

[cadtag]

You've got the relationship just a bit twisted.  NCS is derivative of A/E/C,  not the other way around although a/e/c has made changes to keep in compliance with changes to the NCS since.

Maybe it's more like the a/e/c is it's own grandpa ?   
The earliest verion of the AIA Cad Layer Guidelines dates from 1990, and 2nd edition in 1997 , with the VA, NavFac, and ACOE participating in both.   The earliest a/e/c cadd standard I've got a copy of is 1.9, dated 1999.  and that document dates official collaboration to "develop a single CADD standard for the united States" as 1995.

I don't have a date for the initial NCS release that was not labeled "AIA CAD Layer Guidelines" p the earliest version I have seen is v2, dated 2001.

[cadtag]

It matters when the contractor places a driveway in the wrong location because they ignored the electrical pole locations. The elec has to be spaced so far apart... now there are two outcomes... beg the city/town/state/county to give a variance on the elec pole requirements or have the contractor rip out and  repour the driveways in the proper location.

There is a good reason for having that much information on the civil dwgs. The key is knowing which drawings you are looking at and that we always accomplished by highlighting the specific area the plan shows and shading back everything else. So much for standards on civil plans...

I should have phrased that better.  The situation I had in mind was retrofitting a new sidewalk into an existing roadway, with utilities already in place.  By that point, the guys on the ground don't really need to see aerial wires drawn on the plans, as the wires and poles are already in place.  Pole and guy locations and direction/location of wires may be important to the designer routing around and past things, but not really critical to be on the plans for the blokes with the shovels and screeds.

So, by convention (or standard if you will,) that information is shown ghosted back, and the construction information shown with more emphasis.  It's still there making the drawings busy.

[Krushert]

Being an archie now but a bloke with a shovel in a past life, I would want to see the overhead info for planning purposes such how big of shovel (i.e. excavator) I can use there before I roll out equipment.  Having more info is not necessary a bad thing.

[Bob Wahr]

Can't count the number of times unneeded information not shown on drawings has resulted in a change order from the contractor because <insert lame excuse on how said item is going to cost untold millions of dollars and man hours to ignore here>.  When contractors quit being douches, I might make judgement calls on what they need.  Since that won't happen, I prefer letting them ignore what they don't need.  If the guy on the ground can't read CDs, maybe he shouldn't be there.

[Krushert]

Can't count the number of times unneeded information not shown on drawings has resulted in a change order from the contractor because <insert lame excuse on how said item is going to cost untold millions of dollars and man hours to ignore here>.  When contractors quit being douches, I might make judgement calls on what they need.  Since that won't happen, I prefer letting them ignore what they don't need.  If the guy on the ground can't read CDs, maybe he shouldn't be there.

I don't know how much more we can dumb it down. I think we design more for the liability and lawyers than function and aesthetics.

[JCTER]

Can't count the number of times unneeded information not shown on drawings has resulted in a change order from the contractor because <insert lame excuse on how said item is going to cost untold millions of dollars and man hours to ignore here>.  When contractors quit being douches, I might make judgement calls on what they need.  Since that won't happen, I prefer letting them ignore what they don't need.  If the guy on the ground can't read CDs, maybe he shouldn't be there.

I don't know how much more we can dumb it down. I think we design more for the liability and lawyers than function and aesthetics.

The question/statement we usually make when reviewing our drawings is "There's no way they could be looking at this package and still build it stupid wrong," though we still have to assume that they do know basic skills of the trade =\