TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: MSTG007 on June 24, 2004, 06:58:29 PM
-
Items, entitities usually are on Correct Layer
:)
-
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
-
This is pretty vague.... the question then begs "What is the correct layer?"
Should things such as appliances be on the same layer as the kitchen sink? or should we have layers specifically for bathroom fixtures as opposed to kitchen fixtures? Should door frames which are part of a block be put on the same layer as the door?I think you see my point...
But I do agree, once a layer has been defined, and the objects that are destined for that layer should indeed be placed on that layer.
Incedently I wrote a VBA that monitors all block insertions and when it detects a block insertion, ,it forces the block to the layer defined by the user, for that drawing, and for all subsequent drawings.
-
Entities must reside on the layer specified for that type of data.
If no layer is defined for the type of entity being modeled CADD Support, be it one guy or a committee, need to be advised immediately so that a proper layer may be specified.
-
No arguement here, folks. Defining layer usage is imparative. You will probably all scream but.....we use 01..02..03..04 etc for layer names. We use xrefs extensivly and namt the XREF layers according to the xref ie....DEM for demister filter...FLR for flare.... The layer dropdown now lists the xref layers as DEM/01...FLR/06..FLR/07 etc....
Those layers are assigned a specific part...on the demister, for instance, 01 is ALWAYS the shell, 02 is ALWAYS the bottom plate....and our standards LIST this procedure.....
It takes a while to learn this but ALL dwgs have the SAME part/layer relationship from dwg to dwg.....and oncew you know that procedure, modeling is a breeze.
-
No arguement here, folks. Defining layer usage is imparative. You will probably all scream but.....we use 01..02..03..04 etc for layer names. We use xrefs extensivly and namt the XREF layers according to the xref ie....DEM for demister filter...FLR for flare.... The layer dropdown now lists the xref layers as DEM/01...FLR/06..FLR/07 etc....
Those layers are assigned a specific part...on the demister, for instance, 01 is ALWAYS the shell, 02 is ALWAYS the bottom plate....and our standards LIST this procedure.....
It takes a while to learn this but ALL dwgs have the SAME part/layer relationship from dwg to dwg.....and oncew you know that procedure, modeling is a breeze.
A long time ago, at a different company ... we used a numerical system similar to what you indicated above ... and it worked just fine; I wrote menus, lisp etc. to support it. I was at that company for about 6 years and for the work we performed their (primarilly municipal, water treatment) it was perfectly fine and never failed us.
The bottom line is that you ave a system and it is enforced -- the system may be yours, the system may be your client's, the relevent part is that all members of the team adhere to it, and sometimes custom tools make that all the easier. :)
-
Thanks MP.....I got shot to pieces once "somewhere else" over this, so I was a bit worried about re-hashing it here. Our place is a small "job-shop" and the customer(s) don't set any criteria for us. This all started years ago, before long names were allowed and we needed to keep things concice. It works well so we decided to continue the practice.
As stated, whatever your method, it needs to be followed.
-
yes drawing things on layers allows you to use a drawing for multiple purposes by freezing layers you don't need. i just taught one of my coworkers about freezing layers in viewports because it drove me insane having to revise drawings 4 times instead of once :!:
-
Thanks MP.....I got shot to pieces once "somewhere else" over this, so I was a bit worried about re-hashing it here.
Sorry it took so long to answer this, loading all my guns takes a little time. :shock:
Have you thought about the poor schmuck that's gonna work on those files after you? Or is that not an issue? :cry:
Most of our clients have layer standards with which we must comply, but we have developed a unique layer name for each element that is descriptive of what resides on that layer. One shouldn't have to guess at what the layer is supposed to contain.
-
Thanks MP.....I got shot to pieces once "somewhere else" over this, so I was a bit worried about re-hashing it here.
Sorry it took so long to answer this, loading all my guns takes a little time. :shock:
Have you thought about the poor schmuck that's gonna work on those files after you? Or is that not an issue? :cry:
Most of our clients have layer standards with which we must comply, but we have developed a unique layer name for each element that is descriptive of what resides on that layer. One shouldn't have to guess at what the layer is supposed to contain.
I would agree, however, in a small shop where the layers are clearly defined there becomes no need for others to work on the drawings or to figure them out it becomes a non-issue. Let me explain ....
For example you have 01, 02, 03, and 04, you may look at them and say "What the heck is that supposed to mean?" While the people who work on the drawing simply say, Oh ... that widget is supposed to be on layer 03, and it is understood that 03 is representative of walls or doors. Granted, it is not in my opinion the best use of the layering abilities of AutoCAD, but if the layers are clearly defined and followed, the standard evidently works, perhaps not best, but works nonetheless.
Besides isn't this thread supposed to be about putting objects on their standardized layer and NOT a debate on what we should call the layers?
-
I would agree, however, in a small shop where the layers are clearly defined there becomes no need for others to work on the drawings or to figure them out it becomes a non-issue. Let me explain ....
For example you have 01, 02, 03, and 04, you may look at them and say "What the heck is that supposed to mean?" While the people who work on the drawing simply say, Oh ... that widget is supposed to be on layer 03, and it is understood that 03 is representative of walls or doors.
I'm gonna croak someday, just as we all are, and I was just thinking about the poor guy following up.
Besides isn't this thread supposed to be about putting objects on their standardized layer and NOT a debate on what we should call the layers?
You've been posting here long enough to know better than that, haven't you?? :wink:
-
I'm gonna croak someday, just as we all are, and I was just thinking about the poor guy following up.
If he works for the same organization, then presumably he will have learned the standard ... whatever that is ... oh and just for the record, I used descriptive names for layers in our standard.
Besides isn't this thread supposed to be about putting objects on their standardized layer and NOT a debate on what we should call the layers?
You've been posting here long enough to know better than that, haven't you?? :wink:
Well, yeah, but the title of this thread is All Items Must be on Correct Layer I was beginning to wonder if this was the All Items Must be on a "layer with a name that effectively describes the layer content" layer thread ... which might not be a bad addition to generic standards....
-
Sorry it took so long to answer this, loading all my guns takes a little time. :shock:
Have you thought about the poor schmuck that's gonna work on those files after you? Or is that not an issue? :cry:
Most of our clients have layer standards with which we must comply, but we have developed a unique layer name for each element that is descriptive of what resides on that layer. One shouldn't have to guess at what the layer is supposed to contain.
I don't understand the problem, if T-Bear's spec is clearly documented and religiously adhered to, it should not matter that it is numeric, alpha-numeric, alphabetic, hexidecimal, whatever. The important thing is that it is documented and adhered to. In that case it is easy to translate it to other formats that may be more descriptive and verbose (which are preferred as long as they're systematic), either manually or automagically. :)
-
I don't understand the problem, if T-Bear's spec is clearly documented and religiously adhered to, it should not matter that it is numeric, alpha-numeric, alphabetic, hexidecimal, whatever. The important thing is that it is documented and adhered to. In that case it is easy to translate it to other formats that may be more descriptive and verbose (which are preferred as long as they're systematic), either manually or automagically. :)
I guess. I come from a place where files are routinely ditributed between several dozens different contractors, vendors, suppliers, and other organizations. For us, it makes considerably more sense to name the layers descriptively. I can see several advantages for so doing, but I can't see any advantages for not.
-
Well, yeah, but the title of this thread is All Items Must be on Correct Layer I was beginning to wonder if this was the All Items Must be on a "layer with a name that effectively describes the layer content" layer thread ... which might not be a bad addition to generic standards....
Well, the "Bear" opened it up with comments like:
"You will probably all scream but ....."
and
"It takes a while to learn.."
-
Never said it was good, only that if it was a standard then that was ok.
-
Never said it was good, only that if it was a standard then that was ok.
Quite true, I just didn't want to disappoint the "Bear".
-
Well said ....
-
I've never been disappointed by you two....always good for a chuckle.
If I die tomorrow, the CAD standards in my office will continue as before....they're all documented. As for the "it takes a while" comment, doesn't it always take a new-comer a while to learn your particular standards? I've worked for a "few" different companies and every one had a "better" set of standards...and every one of them took some getting used to....and, for the most part, every one of them worked WHEN ADHERED TO.....
-
As for the "it takes a while" comment, doesn't it always take a new-comer a while to learn your particular standards? ....
True, but "FLR-FRAMING" is a little less cryptic than "001" don't ya' think? Do you think that may be a little easier to "get used to"?
-
Oh no! I'm not Keith or that other pup "over there" and you ain'y gonna get this ol' dog to go there! :roll: :wink:
Sorry CADaver......... :lol:
-
CADaver, evidently t-bear doesn't live for debate....
-
hey question... about details.... how do you set them up layer wise???
layer = Detail
layer = Detail-Text
layer = Detail-Hatch
????
-
Oh no! I'm not Keith or that other pup "over there" and you ain'y gonna get this ol' dog to go there! :roll: :wink:
Sorry CADaver......... :lol:
Ya' big party pooper... or is that not politically correct for someone your age?? :wink:
-
hey question... about details.... how do you set them up layer wise???
layer = Detail
layer = Detail-Text
layer = Detail-Hatch
????
Yes, similar, when needed. We usually use the 3D modle for details, so it's becoming more and more rare to set aside details. That makes the layer usage less and less common.