fussing about it.Man Jeff, stop whining about it! :-P
Was just whimpering and whingeing about it.
This leads to some interesting discussions regarding each professions methods.
The Architects would be well served to base their actual site plan on the actual surveyed location.
Although some do, most wont, and that's all I'm going to say about it.
This leads to some interesting discussions regarding each professions methods.
The Architects would be well served to base their actual site plan on the actual surveyed location.
Although some do, most wont, and that's all I'm going to say about it.
Yeah .............. right. What ever you say. :roll:
Although some do, most wont, and that's all I'm going to say about it.
It's my thread and I bitch if I want to, bitch if I want to.You would bitch too...
Civil/Survey = REAL WORLDAhh lets put that to the test. Lets take a dozen civilians off the street that know nothing about our trades and explain to them our layering name conventions. See which convention gets understood first. :evil:
Architects = Fantasy
I thought Architects just put everything on the "0" layer and changed the color. :PCivil/Survey = REAL WORLDAhh lets put that to the test. Lets take a dozen civilians off the street that know nothing about our trades and explain to them our layering name conventions. See which convention gets understood first. :evil:
Architects = Fantasy
I thought Architects just put everything on the "0" layer and changed the color. :PShhh ... my old boss probably still does that and he is a civil engineer / surveyor. I used to threatened to take away his computer keys.
That would depend entirely on the organization, and or if they had bought in to the NOT NCS for their works.Civil/Survey = REAL WORLDAhh lets put that to the test. Lets take a dozen civilians off the street that know nothing about our trades and explain to them our layering name conventions. See which convention gets understood first. :evil:
Architects = Fantasy
My question is, isn't it good cad practice to not draw so far away from the origin? I'm not looking for an argument here, but an education. :-)
My question is, isn't it good cad practice to not draw so far away from the origin? I'm not looking for an argument here, but an education. :-)
The .......
Dan
All of the above is great, now tell him where you draw the details for the custom millwork.
All of the above is great, now tell him where you draw the details for the custom millwork.
That depends on how you set up your drawings. I draw all my details for a sheet in the same file, with viewports for each scale. We have a template with titleblock grids for all scales from FULL to 1/8", and the 1:1 scale has the left corner at 0,0
For elevations, I have 0,0 equal ELEV. 0'-0", so that I can just do an ID to check the height of something. The x direction usually is a grid, but not so important, just not 17,000 miles away...
Dan
Which is pretty much what I said happens.
Being distant form the origin typically only aggrieves autocad in trying to figure out hatch patterns.
So, being 17,000 miles away from the origin has little or no affect on my drawings accuracy, except for maybe hatches, which can easily be remedied? Is that correct?Correct on first part...
Also, what benefit is it to me to be 17,000 miles away just because the civil drawings are?
Also, what benefit is it to me to be 17,000 miles away just because the civil drawings are?
ESPECIALLY since, when it comes to Civil work, we NEVER trust Architectural drawings. We use the Structural plans, from the Structural Engineer. We view the Architectural plans as "the pretty drawings" that indicate how the final construction should look... They don't really come into play at all when it comes to the Site layout.
Funny, as an architect I never assume structural drawings to be dimensionally accurate. Structural engineers almost never spend the time to keep their drawings updated with all the minor tweaks that occur as part of architectural development.
ESPECIALLY since, when it comes to Civil work, we NEVER trust Architectural drawings. We use the Structural plans, from the Structural Engineer. We view the Architectural plans as "the pretty drawings" that indicate how the final construction should look... They don't really come into play at all when it comes to the Site layout.
Funny, as an architect I never assume structural drawings to be dimensionally accurate. Structural engineers almost never spend the time to keep their drawings updated with all the minor tweaks that occur as part of architectural development. I never xref their plans, only take structural member sizes off their drawings and draw in my plans, then check all dimensions as part of my coordination. For site layout coordination I always include the property line in my site plan and floor plans to make sure everything aligns. We are often on board before civil, sometimes even before survey, and so I locate my plans with 0,0 as the lower left corner of the property line. Often I will rotate the building plan to orthogonal to XY axis as there is no benefit in drafting all our dozens of plans in rotated UCS. My site plan is in true orientation, with the floor plan xreffed and rotated, using the property lines to match up.
heh. I never assume anyone's drawings to be dimensionally accurate. :-)
I burned that bridge bridge behind me long ago.
I would suggest that the 'site plan' be done on real world coordinates for ease of coordination between the two disciplines.
The Architects Building would be an attached reference file, done at whatever coordinate scheme they desire.
Located correctly with respect to the site plan, based off of the Surveyed property lines, which in most cases would reference State Plane.
It is how autodesk has chosen to program for use with those units.
Locating the building correctly on the site then becomes our responsibility, but we use the Structural Engineer's calculations to layout the foundation of the building. We DO NOT trust the Architectural drawings...
There are lots of different ways of working, all the work I have done is design focused and as the architect I direct the location of everything in the building that I can see and locate all columns, all walls, all foundations, etc. When I work with a structural engineer who will dimension every structural element, then my job is to review and coordinate all those dimensions. I do that manually by checking prints, highlighting correct/redlining etc. I also check all the steel shop drawings for dimensions as well. Some engineers won't be bothered with updating dimensions and put all that on us.
Are you saying a structural engineer drives the team aka trumps the architect?There are lots of different ways of working, all the work I have done is design focused and as the architect I direct the location of everything in the building that I can see and locate all columns, all walls, all foundations, etc. When I work with a structural engineer who will dimension every structural element, then my job is to review and coordinate all those dimensions. I do that manually by checking prints, highlighting correct/redlining etc. I also check all the steel shop drawings for dimensions as well. Some engineers won't be bothered with updating dimensions and put all that on us.
That sends shivers down my spine... You think you can trump decisions made by the Structural Engineer...?
Well, I guess as long as you haven't been sued yet....
I'm actually very distressed about DanAllen's comments. I think they reflect poorly on both our professions.
Do you seriously think Solar-System-Scale DWGs have any relevance to Civil plans?