TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: MP on June 27, 2004, 11:33:19 AM
-
Thoughts? :) (edit: revised title)
-
Going "Ten Commandments" on us now, eh?
But, very true, custom shapes (SHX) when you send drawings to others that need them are a pain to them, and to you when you recieve drawing you need.
It's best if you use them to limit them to Title Blocks and/or Logos.
Just my "2 cents".
-
Going "Ten Commandments" on us now, eh?
Yeah, maybe not such a good idea; I revised it.
But, very true, custom shapes (SHX) when you send drawings to others that need them are a pain to them, and to you when you recieve drawing you need.
It's best if you use them to limit them to Tilte Blocks and/or Logos.
Just my "2 cents".
My experience, and I recognize everyone has their own, is that custom shape files represent a significant nightmare for anyone involved in preparing deliverables for clients, so where I assist in the managment of AutoCAD projects they are considered unacceptable despite the fact they might be useful; not negotiable. :)
-
Going "Ten Commandments" on us now, eh?
But, very true, custom shapes (SHX) when you send drawings to others that need them are a pain to them, and to you when you recieve drawing you need.
ETRANSMIT
It's best if you use them to limit them to Title Blocks and/or Logos.
huh? if you use them anywhere, might as well use them everywhere. Why would limiting their use to logos and TBs be beneficial??
-
No way..... I use many different custom SHX files, and quite honestly, as CADaver pointed out... ETRANSMIT ... PACKNGO or whatever it is called in the version you are using. Using that rational, we should use ONLY the AutoCAD standard defined fonts as well, since a recipient may not have that font loaded.
If I send you a file I will have all of the fonts, SHX and other items needed to correctly view and plot that file.
Why on earth would you want to LIMIT the abilities of a person doing drawings. I use custom linetypes for everything from handrails to tongue & groove flooring (sectional) each with their custom shx files embedded, and I have found it to be both easy AND much faster than simply drawing everything longhand ....
-
No way..... I use many different custom SHX files, and quite honestly, as CADaver pointed out... ETRANSMIT ... PACKNGO or whatever it is called in the version you are using. Using that rational, we should use ONLY the AutoCAD standard defined fonts as well, since a recipient may not have that font loaded.
If I send you a file I will have all of the fonts, SHX and other items needed to correctly view and plot that file.
Why on earth would you want to LIMIT the abilities of a person doing drawings. I use custom linetypes for everything from handrails to tongue & groove flooring (sectional) each with their custom shx files embedded, and I have found it to be both easy AND much faster than simply drawing everything longhand ....
I'm going to play devil's advocate here ... yes, use only the standard AutoCAD fonts, styles, shapes ad nauseum; that way they will always appear correctly on target machines without worry of sending companion shx files etc, as well as not having to concern oneself with copyright issues (which a lot of firms conveniently do not consider -- has your client paid for compugrafix etc. I ask rhetorhically?) ...
PS - Sadly, that new logo is annoying -- it causing the texbox edit cursor cursor to flash as it cycles thru animation frames.
-
I'm going to play devil's advocate here ... yes, use only the standard AutoCAD fonts, styles, shapes ad nauseum; that way they will always appear correctly on target machines without worry of sending companion shx files etc, as well as not having to concern oneself with copyright issues (which a lot of firms conveniently do not consider -- has your client paid for compugrafix etc. I ask rhetorhically?) ...
For our company it is a non-issue all of the custom shx files (including shapes AND textstyles) were developed in house, meaning I developed them under the leadership of the client (my boss). We defined them to use because of their ease, and speed, and will gladly share them to others that migh utilize our drawings.
-
I'm going to play devil's advocate here ... yes, use only the standard AutoCAD fonts, styles, shapes ad nauseum; that way they will always appear correctly on target machines without worry of sending companion shx files etc, as well as not having to concern oneself with copyright issues (which a lot of firms conveniently do not consider -- has your client paid for compugrafix etc. I ask rhetorhically?) ...
For our company it is a non-issue all of the custom shx files (including shapes AND textstyles) were developed in house, meaning I developed them under the leadership of the client (my boss). We defined them to use because of their ease, and speed, and will gladly share them to others that migh utilize our drawings.
I'm not discounting the value and utility custom shapes etc. offer, to witt, I've made my own shape files for custom linetypes etc. (love those hex codes), but in my experience, the benefits have been HIGHLY dwarfed by the detriments, but admittedly, ours is a different camp from the discussions I've seen here.
The only absolute I'd say, and this goes for the bulk of these topics / issues, if your standard clearly identifies the use of shapes etc. as acceptable (c/w proper procedure and implementation etc.) there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and arguing to the contrary is completely ludicrous. My client's spec may state all drawings will utilize purple polka dotted base models, and dang it, it better happen in all drawings or I'm going to find and take issue with you! This despite the fact that my experience suggests the polka dots should ALWAYS be yellow pacman shapes!
-
... the benefits have been HIGHLY dwarfed by the detriments, ...
Which detriment would those be?? (I'm speaking specifically of linetype shapes)
-
Which detriment would those be?? (I'm speaking specifically of linetype shapes)
To put it succinctly, distribution, redistribution, external dependencies and document management systems.
-
Which detriment would those be?? (I'm speaking specifically of linetype shapes)
To put it succinctly, distribution, redistribution, external dependencies and document management systems.
hmmm... so you don't use XREFs for the very same reasons??
-
hmmm... so you don't use XREFs for the very same reasons??
You have amazing capacity for linear thought. :)
-
hmmm... so you don't use XREFs for the very same reasons??
You have amazing capacity for linear thought. :)
Nice dodge.
Xref's have the very same"distribution, redistribution, external dependencies and document management systems" problems as SHAPES. If one tool is avoided for those reasons, why not the other??
BTW, according to DeBono that was low-level lateral thought based on cognitive association of past experiential data. Now had you said "Yes, for the same reasons", that would have been linear thought, but that's a whole nuther thread.
-
CADaver my sentiment exactly...
-
Xref's have the very same"distribution, redistribution, external dependencies and document management systems" problems as SHAPES. If one tool is avoided for those reasons, why not the other??
First, sorry for the snippy "capacity" comment on my part; reading it now it doesn't seem as friendly as when I penned it.
You are correct that they sport the same characteristics with regards to distribution et. al. The difference is that separate modeling (xrefing) is an absolute necessary evil to manage large scale, multi discipline projects (as you know). While it poses real headaches in the areas noted above (and sadly I have more experience than I want in this regard) there is no practical alternative that I have seen.
Shape files on the other hand are not an absolute necessity (imo). Further, when shape files are not resolved correctly they can be far nastier to deal with. Real world example, and I encountered this in the last week. We are co-consultants on a huge project. We have received a couple hundred models from the other camp. All of the civil drawings were create using third party software from a "reputable software vendor". Said software employed custom shape files. Of course, the operators don't necessarilly know this as the program's documentation isn't thorough enough to mention this, or it is buried on page 927, let alone the folks in the other camp's document control department who supplied us the models. So we don't have the custom shape files. Now then, any time we open a document that refers to one of these offending models the dialog below appears:
(http://theswamp.org/lilly.pond/puckett/images/fatalerror.png)
Seems benign enough right? Wrong. It appears for every single instance of the reference to the unresolved shape file; typically in the thousands, so you have to lean on the escape key for 10 minutes or so. Once AutoCAD comes up for air it does not reveal the name of the unresolved shape file, so you have to write code to walk the database, find the unresolved shape references, compile a list, talk to the other camp ...
... should we have to endure this avoidable nonsense?
Certainly a lot more can be written on this topic but too many posts, too little time! I should have been snoring a half hour ago! :)
-
First, sorry for the snippy "capacity" comment on my part; reading it now it doesn't seem as friendly as when I penned it.
Didn't notice "snippy", just thought it was the normal level of banter that frequents these threads. Darn it, missed an opportunity to be indignant.
We have received a couple hundred models from the other camp. All of the civil drawings were create using third party software from a "reputable software vendor". Said software employed custom shape files. Of course, the operators don't necessarilly know this as the program's documentation isn't thorough enough to mention this, or it is buried on page 927, let alone the folks in the other camp's document control department who supplied us the models. So we don't have the custom shape files.
That is not a problem that belongs to shapes, but rather the supplier of the files. It ain't the tool it's the user.
Now then, any time we open a document
...
, so you have to lean on the escape key for 10 minutes or so.
...
so you have to write code to walk the database, find the unresolved shape references, compile a list, talk to the other camp ...
... should we have to endure this avoidable nonsense?
Wrong approach. At the first error, shut it down, call the supplier of the model, tell him you're back-charging him for down-time until he properly transmits the files and all their supporting data. It's part of our standard contract, you supply us with everything we need to use your files, or you pay us, by the hour, to sit around waiting on you to come up with a solution.
Recently a vendor had a serious problem (not cad related) supplying what was required. By the time the smoke cleared, he had basically given us his equipment for free. We moved him to the preferred vendors list.
-
Wrong approach. At the first error, shut it down, call the supplier of the model, tell him you're back-charging him for down-time until he properly transmits the files and all their supporting data. It's part of our standard contract, you supply us with everything we need to use your files, or you pay us, by the hour, to sit around waiting on you to come up with a solution.
You are making a wild and inaccurate assumption: these are not models supplied by vendors, these are models and drawings supplied by co-consultants; and like it or not, we are not in a position to demand, we must request things in a professional manner. If we took an arrogant, high and mighty stance there is a real possibility we might enjoy a smaller piece of the pie for sporting "attitude".
-
What's that old saying?
"Arrogance is bliss"..........
Some of us have that latitude, others are on the "wet" end of the stick. You gotta do what you.....
-
Wrong approach. At the first error, shut it down, call the supplier of the model, tell him you're back-charging him for down-time until he properly transmits the files and all their supporting data. It's part of our standard contract, you supply us with everything we need to use your files, or you pay us, by the hour, to sit around waiting on you to come up with a solution.
You are making a wild and inaccurate assumption: these are not models supplied by vendors, these are models and drawings supplied by co-consultants; and like it or not, we are not in a position to demand, we must request things in a professional manner. If we took an arrogant, high and mighty stance there is a real possibility we might enjoy a smaller piece of the pie for sporting "attitude".
Well one guy's high and mighty is another's intelligent business practice. Are you being paid by the hour or the job??
If it's by the hour, you'll be making a profit, but your client is getting screwed by somebody else's errors. As a client, I want to know when my money is being wasted, and I really appreciate a consultant when he points it out, wouldn't you?
If it's by the job, you're spending your profit on somebody else's errors. Profit that you must attempt to recover somehow, back-charges, cutting corners, future price increases, somehow sone where it's gotta be paid for. As a client, I can appreciate the situation, and I really would prefer you not to cut corners, nor would I like to spend more money on the next job because of somebody else's errors. Back-charges are a PITB, but the only reasonable way to place the financial burden where it belongs. The sooner it happens the cheaper it is.
Either way, as a client, my costs are cut, and the product remains cost effective.
Call it arrogant if you like, but I prefer to be profitable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a contractor (co-consultant) we get paid by the job, fixed price, one fee whether it takes a week or a year. Our standard contract, provides details for acceptable deliverables, and direction for resolution of non-compliance. Both the client, and other consultants are aware of these requirements to achieve our common goals. Our profits will not be determined by the performance (or rather non-performance) of other contractors. The financial burden of his errors will be carried by him alone.
-
Unfortunately, we don't all work in a utopian environment, I would love to tell some people to piss off and find someone else to do their work if they can't get it right, but unfortunately that is not how it works when you are not the only game in town.