Author Topic: Flattening drawings.  (Read 49508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MickD

  • King Gator
  • Posts: 3636
  • (x-in)->[process]->(y-out) ... simples!
SuperFlatten
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2007, 08:30:37 PM »
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!
"Programming is really just the mundane aspect of expressing a solution to a problem."
- John Carmack

"Short cuts make long delays,' argued Pippin.”
- J.R.R. Tolkien

CaddmannQ

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2007, 09:33:09 PM »
hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file.  Why is that “stupid” and this not??

Comparing the unnecessary exploding of dimensions to the necessity of making a workable 2D file out of an unworkable 3D file is senseless. 

Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.

Doing what we do is less work than re-working client drawings into viable 3D. Please quit trying to make more of it than that.

maybe they’re Luddites??

Doubtless, but I'm not about to make that observation to our clients.


Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”.  If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.

No it takes a good deal of care to make it safe. Flattening is just the first step there.

If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally?  Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate??  That’s a bad bet.

I don't "rely" on anything I don't have to. I make it as accurate as necessary. I'd like to have better clients, but I don't get to pick the clients. Lucky for you, if you do.

You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner?? You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of  such an untenable file.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.

You say it’s a good idea, I say it’s a bad idea; such is life is it not?  Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.

Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.

CaddmannQ

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2007, 09:37:47 PM »
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!

It's generally worse than that. These are drawings from people that bought into ADT but don't really know how to use it. This becomes very clear once you see their CAD files. They couldn't draw a doghouse in 3D.

CADaver

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2007, 11:08:29 PM »
Randy, are you not reqd to supply a 2d plan at all?
We plot different views of the 3D model, some of those views are plan views (slices looking down the Z axis) some of them are elevations (looking at the outside of the structure or whatever) some are sectional (slices looking down the X and Y axes normal to the structure).

CADaver

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2007, 11:15:50 PM »
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.

Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why?  Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D. 
Then you're doing something wrong, shouldn't take any longer at all to place a 3D member, especially if you're defaulting Z to the current elevation.


If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it.  Why?  Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to.  In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.
You'll end up with incorrect values only if you build it incorrectly.

Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous.   ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.
And there are folks posting on this very forum with equally "valid" reasons for exploding dimensions.  I disagree.

CADaver

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2007, 11:19:02 PM »
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!
I prefer not to use cr4ppy drawings, even if they are flat.

CADaver

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2007, 11:41:58 PM »
hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file.  Why is that “stupid” and this not??

Comparing the unnecessary exploding of dimensions to the necessity of making a workable 2D file out of an unworkable 3D file is senseless. 
Stepping on an unworkable file makes it a flat unworkable file, and there are folks on this forum that have offered equally "valid" reasons for exploding dimensions.  I disagree with both concepts.  If you choose to use "flat" garbage carry on, however, I see little advantage over 3D garbage.

Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.

Doing what we do is less work than re-working client drawings into viable 3D. Please quit trying to make more of it than that.
Drawing plans and then sections and then elevations, is an unnecessary duplication of effort.


Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”.  If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.

No it takes a good deal of care to make it safe. Flattening is just the first step there.
Unless you're going to physically check EVERY element in the file (see the sample Joe provided), at some point you're relying on data supplied from what you already know is a questionable source.  That's a bad bet.


If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally?  Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate??  That’s a bad bet.

I don't "rely" on anything I don't have to. I make it as accurate as necessary. I'd like to have better clients, but I don't get to pick the clients. Lucky for you, if you do.
If they provide cr4p, I'll rebuild it completely from scratch and bill them for it... or get a complete release of ALL liability for the accuracy of the design.

You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner?? You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of such an untenable file.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.
You said you'd been drawing elevations for thirty years, did you not?  We can go back a few posts and check if you want? Some dozen years ago it became quite easy to view 3D models in elevation, making it no longer necessary to "redraw" the very same data for each elevation.  Adhering to the ways of the past would fall quite comfortably under the Luddite flag.

You say it's a good idea, I say it's a bad idea; such is life is it not? Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.

Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.
Your claim that the concept is a good idea is based solely on the drawings you use, just as my claim that the concept is a bad idea is based on the drawings I use.  Are they not equally valid for our frames of reference?

Krushert

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 13679
  • FREE BEER Tomorrow!!
SuperFlatten
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2007, 07:14:46 AM »
Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.
Your claim that the concept is a good idea is based solely on the drawings you use, just as my claim that the concept is a bad idea is based on the drawings I use.  Are they not equally valid for our frames of reference?
Hmmmm I think this is a different version of PeeWee's "I know you are but what am I"
I + XI = X is true ...  ... if you change your perspective.

I no longer CAD or Model, I just hang out here picking up the empties beer cans

Dinosaur

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2007, 07:55:28 AM »
heads up guys . . . they just started the last batch of popcorn in the place and the only drinks left are lemonade and iced tea (and they ran out of ice 20 minutes ago)

Krushert

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 13679
  • FREE BEER Tomorrow!!
SuperFlatten
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2007, 08:10:15 AM »
heads up guys . . . they just started the last batch of popcorn in the place and the only drinks left are lemonade and iced tea (and they ran out of ice 20 minutes ago)
*** followed by the sounds of feet stampeding and people "yelling out of my way!" ***
I + XI = X is true ...  ... if you change your perspective.

I no longer CAD or Model, I just hang out here picking up the empties beer cans

Guest

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2007, 08:22:40 AM »
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!

It's generally worse than that. These are drawings from people that bought into ADT but don't really know how to use it. This becomes very clear once you see their CAD files. They couldn't draw a doghouse in 3D.
Word up to that!

In our line of work, 3D drawings aren't all that important right now.  Sure we'll generate some 3D drawings if space is critical, but as far as 3D from the architect...we don't really need it, plus it just bogs down our systems.  It's bad enough that we're using ABS/MEP which is a resource hog itself.  If we have simple 2D backgrounds, that's (usually) good enough.

I haven't had a chance to try the proggy yet, but I have downloaded it.  If it works as good as Joe claims it does, then I'm definitely going to use it.

Thanks (in advance) Joe!

Joe Burke

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2007, 09:30:32 AM »
Randy,

I agree with you regarding the idea, if I may paraphrase, garbage in garbage out. Likewise, I certainly do not feel comfortable with any attempt at fixing other people's mistakes. Especially when that other person is a consultant who should know more about what they are doing than I do.

The flip side is sometimes I have to compromise between what I wish I had and what I have inhand. Maybe just to meet a deadline.

What I intend to do given the Site example file I posted is send the program to the consultant and ask them to fix things as they see fit.

Which leads to my point here. SuperFlatten is just a tool like any other. Users are free to use or abuse it as they see fit. That is not and should not be my concern from a programming standpoint.

Aside to those who said thanks, my pleasure. I hope it serves you well.

Regards

CaddmannQ

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2007, 10:05:07 AM »
Randy, I think you're trying to exasperate me by repeating the same old <excrement>, so I'm gonna get mad here; but his is my last round of dead horse beating on this topic.

To 3D or not to 3D is NOT the question here and it never was. It's totally obtuse that you keep trying to make it seem so; but perhaps relative to your world the real issue this topic addresses doesn't even exist.

If you tried that "redraw the thing from scratch and bill the client" <excrement> in our business you'd either be without clients in a heartbeat or they'd just tell you to go whistle up a drainpipe because they ain't paying for it. I'm not going to try and educate you further in that matter, because then I'd have to bill you and you wouldn't pay either.

Are things less than cutting edge in this business? Absolutely. Are we gonna change the M.O. of the whole market segment by force of will and dogged determination? Not bloody likely. Am I losing sleep over it? Nope. When the clients can send us viable 3D, we'll send them 3D back. End of story.

As for the Luddite thing: kiss off. We have real computers and we can work them. If we're not NASA or Bechtel, well so freakin' what? We do what makes sense with what we are given, and the fact that you think what we do is wrong doesn't alter the fact that virtually everybody in this segment is doing the same thing.

Public school design isn't what you do as a specialty, so pardon me if I don't bother with the pointless task of explaining the issues further.

edited for language
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 10:28:15 AM by DinØsaur »

Guest

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2007, 10:11:42 AM »
my last round of dead horse beating on this topic

Sorry... Couldn't resist!

craigr

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2007, 11:13:45 AM »
Thanks for the entertainment :-)

craigr