Topic: Layers

[Jeff H]

Here are some files with NCS Standards I use it for .Net App

[cadtag]

Hey, thanks,  Appreciate the time put into them

But, looking at the names, it's fairly easy to see an need for a hierachical layer manager,  eg one that uses tree controls to collapse or expand sets of layers based on NCS group codes.   It would make NCS naming a bit simpler to follow and use

[Jeff H]

I actually did not put much time into them got them from https://cadbim.usace.army.mil/CAD this is corp of engineer standards which we have corp contracts. Has alot standard details and linetypes should check it out.
They do follow the NCS standards but there are better ways I like to name layers that still conform to NCS
I use a ListView control and set up groups to sort them by the major group and let the user add pictures to them so they can have a little icon of a airplane for layeres with the major of airfield etc..

[mjfarrell]

[RANT]

You know I really wish folks would stop using the term 'ncs'. Because the fact is it is NOT the national cad standard.
It is a standard that some group is attempting to slam on to everyone by calling it 'the standard'; and if one were to poll the industry my guess is that one would find fewer than 20% of industry actually using the 'standard' in compliance with said 'standard'.

[/RANT]

[Jeff H]

What else are we suppose to call the National Cad Standards

Some of the Standards I think are helpful and of course alot are very annoying.

There is a need for some standards but not a 1000 page document.

We have contracts with CORP, Embassy’s, and other organizations that require it and I am very grateful they are not to familiar with NCS (Sorry I do not know what else to call the NCS) becausee some of the standards are just well you obviously know.
 I have never seen a full set of drawings that were at least 80% compliant to the NCS .

But as long as they send us contracts what else can you do?

[cadtag]

There's also the PWGSC National CADD Standard in Canada (w/ both French and English layer naming),  or for an international flavor, the ISO 13567-1 thru -3.....  but most of my work is Stateside, so the US NCS, while very building-centric is most relevant to me.  Flawed as it may be, it's still the closest approximation to a national multi-disciplinary approach for drawing set organization, sheet and file naming, and layer naming around.  As such, it's a useful tool for inter-office/inter-organization collaboration.

But, for layer naming, it would be quite helpful if a hierarchical layer manager  existed..  The naming conventions in the NCS layers would lend themselves nicely to a tree-structure,  collapsing and expanding by discipline, major group codes, status, etc.

[mjfarrell]

Point being it is the 'national cad standard' in NAME ONLY.
And some of you have verified this through your response(s).

[cadtag]

Point being it is the 'national cad standard' in NAME ONLY.
And some of you have verified this through your response(s).

& a rose by any other name.. and so on.   But what else would you call it?  the three organizations that are primarily  behind the effort, the Construction Specification Institute, the National Institute of Building Science, & the American Institute of Architects, are all national in scope, not regional, not local, and not limited to a single state or county. As well, the standard they are developing and promoting is not limited to a single CAD platform or OS.  To some extent, that forces a lowest common denominator approach, and requires flexibility in implementation.  Hence you're not likely to see an 'official' CTB.  (considering that 10% of the population has some form of color blindness, it would be disadvantageous)

CalTrans and FDOT standards play well in their respective arenas, but NCS is more widely recognized, whether in Oregon, Arkansas, or Florida.  Generally not tightly adhered to, but it shouldn't be -- every job and every organization will have specific requirements and tasks that are needed.  A relatively loose and extend-able standard is more usable than a rigid mandated approach.    Personally, I might prefer the old name for the layering -- Cad Layer Guidelines, but cie la vie.

And heck, the process is open to anyone who wants to join.  Voting for this year just finished, but it's an ongoing process.

http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org/index.php/ncs/

[mjfarrell]

It's something, however it is not THE national standard. I would not call it the 'standard' unless and until it had been much more widely adopted as such; as apposed to the manner it has been foisted off onto the user with NO documentation. Unless of course one wants to 'buy in' litterally purchasing the documentation on how to implement said standard.
It seems to me to be a way to charge folks for something they really didn't have a need for, in order to utilize it properly.  Honestly; CADD drawings got done way before this organisation decided they needed to create and charge users for a standard (that most still do not use).  The Civil world would have gotten along quite nicely using any of the states' Department of Transportation CADD standards.  And the rest of the 'building' world could have been satisfied with the AIA standard.
I'm at a loss as to what to call it, however it isn't what it postures it's self to be.

That's my position, and very little has a chance of changing that view, so I'll leave it there.

[Jeff H]

The NCS uses AIA layer naming conventions

[mjfarrell]

The NCS uses AIA layer naming conventions

Yes, and those AIA names had been in use, and accepted by that industry long before they were lumped into this other thing.
Whereas in the case of the Civil/GIS industry no such commonly accepted or practiced layer naming convention was incorporated by same.
Thanks for validating that part of my position!

[caddcop]

If you want to see some nightmare standards, check out a few DOT MicroStation Standards! Those guys were stuck with numbered levels for so long that when they were finally able to add level names, many of them went level happy. They either made names that were more verbose than most layer descriptions, or went with names that were so cryptic that it would take an entire hand of decoder rings to decipher their meanings.
NCS is far from ideal, but at least it is generally workable.

[JCTER]

What's the big deal with calling it NCS?  Standard does not mean it's the only one in existence.  It's just -a- standard.  There are many standards.   

[Jeff H]

When I refer to NCS it is NCS website

In the specs some government agencies will state that you must follow NCS

[Jeff H]

I forgot to mention a single pdf downlaod copy cost $410