TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: Bethrine on July 01, 2015, 05:09:41 PM
-
In paper drafting, it is suggested to use maybe 3 lineweights.
How practical is this today?
How many lineweights do you use?
The older drawings tend to look cleaner to me. What do you think?
-
5-7 lineweights are managable
Past that it starts to just present as 'noise'
-
Bethrine,
I seldom used object lineweight ... relied more on pen size ...
As MJ mentioned, 5 - 7 is optimum ; though I've produces a lot of documents with 4 pen weights
metric 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, 0.7
-
I think three lineweights is a good start for basic drafters, in my experience they can't decide consistently for more weights than that. For architectural detailing:
1 = heavy cut line, just the perimeter of object (for old free hand ink details we used a fat sign pen http://www.dickblick.com/products/pentel-arts-sign-pens/ (http://www.dickblick.com/products/pentel-arts-sign-pens/))
2 = everything else (for hand used a thinner stylist http://www.dickblick.com/products/yasutomo-stylist-pens/ (http://www.dickblick.com/products/yasutomo-stylist-pens/))
3 = light hatch patterns (for hand used a pencil or really light touch on stylist), this weight can even be dropped to just have 2, see Frank Ching drawings
maybe go to 4 weights
1.5 = significant objects within section cut, such as primary structure, or for elevation views the outline of the object or change in plane depth
-
Bethrine,
I seldom used object lineweight ... relied more on pen size ...
As MJ mentioned, 5 - 7 is optimum ; though I've produces a lot of documents with 4 pen weights
metric 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, 0.7
I learned somewhere here that today's lineweights came from printer pens (so to speak). I wonder if those were created to match older standard pen widths?
-
Thank you Kerry and dan allen! I am taking notes!
dan allen: deciding consistently was definitely something I struggled with, especially without guidance on it.
-
We originally used colours to match the old pen sizes, so in the UK, the pen widths were red=0.18, white =.25, yellow=.35 etc... that "helped" us older drafties "see" how thick our lines on the computer would plot out...
I used to love to watch the old pen plotter do a plot, there never seemed any logic to where it would draw next :)
-
^^ ditto
The 0.5 pen was brown but we used Magenta for 0.5 lines.
We had this (not plottable) in the corner of our borders to 'remind' anyone ( clients ) who plotted our drawings.
Since that time almost all documents are issued PDF rather than dwg files.
-
I learned somewhere here that today's lineweights came from printer pens (so to speak). I wonder if those were created to match older standard pen widths?
Technical Pens, e.g. Rapidograph, were the original source. Prior to their introduction, the previous style of drafting instruments, ruling pens, were capable of much more variation in line width- depending on the way they were held. sorta like calligraphy pens. Ruling pen lines could change line width from one end to another -- kinda helpful to emphasize the important parts like the ends while diminishing the impact of the overall line.
Technical pens on the other hand, were restricted to fixed line widths, and the way to change the weight of a line was to swap pens.
-
Technical pens on the other hand, were restricted to fixed line widths, and the way to change the weight of a line was to swap pens.
I remember being taught how to "thicken" a line using technical pens by drawing the line up to three times: The first you had to hold the pens straight against the ruler (as one normally does), a second line could then be drawn with the pen slanting away from the ruler slightly, and a third with the pen slanting towards the ruler.
dJE
-
Someone was teaching you some 'bad' habits.....
including calling a drafting instrument a 'ruler'.
We had inking triangles and parallel ruling Straightedges, and or 'drafting arms'. And scales; oddly we had no 'rulers'.
-
lol
Quite possibly
I was taught never to use a scale rule as a straight edge, but had forgotten the generic term!
dJE