Topic: The ONE most important standard

[Dinosaur]

I have enough trouble getting the engineers to put their curbs on the layer named "curb" to send them off looking through dozens of criptic layer names for the correct one under that format.  They would most certainly just place them on the first layer they found that was the correct color and let ME sort it out later.

[hudster]

C1/SfB - 621_ - Electrical small power

C1/SfB is the name of the standard, one which practically all UK bases construction companies use, (those that don't aren't very big).

So a standard layer is as follows E_63_M, which is lighting graphics, or E_62_T, small power text.
This is a descriptive content which is split over the services making each one easy to pick out.

Why does the US just ignore international standards they helped to draw up?

[CADaver]

Why does the US just ignore international standards they helped to draw up?

Because "WE" didn't.  A few (completely un-cad types) decided to provide a standard for us, much like the AIA, and in the process chose to ignore the several hundred thousand of us already using standards of our own.  Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are less than intelligent for the vast majority of users out there.

[jonesy]

Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are less than intelligent for the vast majority of users out there.

I agree with that. We have just been told we have to use the AIA standard and it stinks. The majority of the engineers here only dabble in cad so have difficulty finding out the correct layer names. The next few months are going to be fun (NOT!) trying to train the engineers in the new layer names.

[hudster]

several hundred thousand of us already using standards of our own.

You hit the nail on the head there, it's your standards, not mine or anyone elses, but if we all keep doing our own things, the system will never improve.

It's the same with the dinosaur engineers in here, "We fear change". Change can sometimes be for the better.

[Dent Cermak]

There are standards. We all learned them in school. Then some go out into the work place and "express their artistic talents". OR, as stated before, uneducated goons decide to create new standards. Prime example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They had the most complete set of standards ands symbology that existed. Had it down to a gnats butt. Then the computer types decided to redo the world with their cad standards. Did you know that there was not ONE trained designer on that committee? Thus, the mapping symbols that had been used for MANY years have been abandoned. Funny thing is that the manuals gave EVERY detail of each symbol so conversion to a CADD block was a no-brainer. Problem was, NO ONE on the committee knew the manuals.

[CADaver]

You hit the nail on the head there, it's your standards, not mine or anyone elses, but if we all keep doing our own things, the system will never improve.

Point being, "they" took it upon "themselves" to determine that my standards required improving.  Mine worked just fine for me, still do.  In fact work MUCH MUCH better for me than ANYTHING that "they" have come up with since 1996.  If "they" had just asked the thousands of us who have been doing this a very long time, it may have been different.  But as it stands right now, I'm NOT going to go to a considerably less productive standard than I have in place for no other reason than to be "standard".  If it does not improve the productivity of the end users, it will have a real hard time catching on.

It's the same with the dinosaur engineers in here, "We fear change". Change can sometimes be for the better.

It's not change we fear, it's change for the sake of change, or worse, change to something that bloody doesn't work.  Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are NOT "better", just cryptic.

[hudster]

It's the same with the dinosaur engineers in here, "We fear change". Change can sometimes be for the better.

It's not change we fear, it's change for the sake of change, or worse, change to something that bloody doesn't work.  Cryptic alpha-numeric layer names are NOT "better", just cryptic.

For the record, the dinosaurs thing wasn't directed at you or anyone else here, it was directed at the engineers in my office who are "in charge" of the CAD operation but can't open a drawing, and won't let me change it for the better.

As for cryptic, 99.99% of building construction companies in the UK know these numbers, and they know them because they are a standard series.
I've been doing this job for over 17 years and In all that time no company I've worked for has ever used anythng except the CIBSE matrix codes.

What this requires most of all is for people to adopt the standards, because if they don't then we all remain doing our own thing, and electronic cad drawing file excahnges remain cryptic to anyone who doesn't know your system.

At the moment i'm tryiong to get a copy of the Architects matrix codes, (different standard), to try to decypher their drawings.  But if they used the ISO standard I wouldn't need to because it would use the same codes for every job, and eventually I'd klnow what they were.
and that's my point, if we all use the ISO then everyone is in on it, and everyone would be able to understand the layouts.
Architects could use the steelwork drawings, and building services could use both with practically no changes being required.

I dream of the day where we all use the same standards to draw with, you could cut my workload by half just by doing this.

[Dent Cermak]

I have the solution!! Create layer names that even you don't understand. Then do like that Colorado bunch I had to deal with and name your blocks "A", "B"....etc. After "Z", the next name is "AA" on to "ZZ". Then draw EVERYTHING on layer ZERO and chane  each line's color to suit the mood of the moment. Then be sure to move the center of your drawing to 0,0. An Architects Dream come true!!

[daron]

"The one MOST important standard..."? "Mark all topics read."

[CADaver]

But if they used the ISO standard I wouldn't need to because it would use the same codes for every job, and eventually I'd klnow what they were.

and in the mean time, I watch my profits slide away as I wait for the 250 guys here to "eventually" remember this cryptic nonsense.

and that's my point, if we all use the ISO then everyone is in on it,

Had they started with the industry that was already in place, doing the work with standards that were already working they may have had a better shot at getting it off the ground.  But instead they chose to DICTATE to us how we were going to do CAD.  Guess what?  Here it is 10 years later and the so-called International standard is NOT so standard

and everyone would be able to understand the layouts.
Architects could use the steelwork drawings, and building services could use both with practically no changes being required.

Come on, you know better than that.  The Architects that have their own standards don't use 'em.  If there is no productive reason for their use, they will not be used.  As long as any organization has a functioning standard that makes them productive, that is the standard they will use.

I dream of the day where we all use the same standards to draw with, you could cut my workload by half just by doing this.

We do it every day.  Every one of our contractors and suppliers comply with our standards, without exception.  Why? because we make it profitable for them to do so, and expensive if they don't.  The current ISO standard just makes it expensive either way.

[hudster]

I do understand and agree with everything, well practically everything, you say. But the fact remains while everyone uses their own system people will find fault with it.

I agree that you can't have a standard which suits everyone, that is an impossibility. But if you can cater to 99% of the market then that standard will improve.

It's only by using a system that you can make it better.  Standards are a continually evolving beast. I don't kow of any company (except mine ) that doesn't continually improve on their Quality control documents.

But as the saying goes, "If we all liked the same things the world would be a boring place".

[dubb]

the purpose of a standard for me is to bring out what the city or client likes. and furthremore the readablility of the drawings 20 years from now. i realize that as long as a house is built the plans will remain as well....

[CADaver]

But if you can cater to 99% of the market then that standard will improve.

when they can cater to 20% of the market, i'll buy into it, and they won't get half that until they lose the cryptic alpha-numeric junk.

[hudster]

Just out of curiosity CADaver, can you show me a typical example of some of your layers.

Mine use the aplha numeric junk.
i.e.
_63_LTG
_63_LTG_TXT
_63_LTG_DETAIL
_63_LTG_SWITCH
etc etc