Topic: CTB FILES

[AUTOKAD]

Hi All,

I'm in the architectural/ interior/ industrial design industry. We do from floor plans to millwork details. And I would just like to know your ctb standard lineweights for colored and black and white prints. I just want to know the most common or industry standards. What lineweight to use for red, green, etc. Thanks

[Josh Nieman]

The standard is....



everyone makes their own crap up.

There is no prominent standard.

[ronjonp]

CTB's! Sorry...couldn't resist 

[Krushert]

The standard is....



everyone makes their own crap up.

There is no prominent standard.

Josh is right.  It is whatever suits you and your firm.  The one architect that set up the layer names used colors that he like and thus we only use maybe one third of the colors in CTB file.  For each pen weight, there maybe 5 colors that first on his list to chose from.  And we only have 5 pen weights.  I have been slowly tweaking the CTB file and Layering System to give greater flexibility.  When you have four different items all touching each other and they have the same color and line weight leads to a very confusing plot.

[AUTOKAD]

Thanks
If I'm not mistaken I've seen a ctb table, showing all the colors and the suggested lineweights to use, in this forum. Or maybe not.

[Josh Nieman]

Thanks
If I'm not mistaken I've seen a ctb table, showing all the colors and the suggested lineweights to use, in this forum. Or maybe not.

If you have, it's just one person/company's suggestion and by no means to be considered "right"

One tip I have is that, since you don't really have TOO many different line weights, assign a lineweight to a WHOLE ROW of colors... that way you can pick and choose your colors, can have multiple colors on the screen for clarity, while still having them at the same lineweight if needed.  There are a few things I don't like about this color table, it's merely the one the company already had that I documented a handout for.

Here's ours:

[TimSpangler]

Mine is set up similar to Josh's  Each line has its own linewight, Named Colors have there own and the Greys are just that Screened.

[Birdy]

FWIW, our "primary" lines are 0.019".  (Just a starting point... which consensus said 'looks fine')
Dimensions plot out 'slightly' thinner.
"Secondary" lines, slightly thinner than dims.
Hatches, same as secondary lines.
Titleblock border. .03" (I think.)
From there, it's been just a matter of adding stuff into the mix as we go.  CAD department consensus over-rules anyone elses.

Totally arbitrary, but has worked for us for 10+ years.
(minor tweaks were made when we ditched the Diazo.

[sinc]

Here's ours:

That one would go "against the grain" for most people we work with.

In general, they always setup their CTBs so that the primary colors are in order of increasing lineweight, i.e. red is lightest and magenta is darkest.

We use STBs ourselves.  Our "primary" lineweight, if we have one, would probably be .014".  We generally avoid using anything less than .006" because those tend to not showup on recorded documents, when we make prints on matte film and take them to the county to be recorded.  Lineweights smaller than .006" tend to be hard to see or invisible on the resulting prints.

Some of our employees used to work for a company that set their "red" to a really thin lineweight, and they had a number of plats recorded before someone realized significant chunks of linework was disappearing on the recorded version of the documents.

[Josh Nieman]

Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.

[ronjonp]

Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.

Keep in mind that if you use scale line weights when you plot, you do not have to have different CTB's for full and half. 

[Josh Nieman]

Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.

Keep in mind that if you use scale line weights when you plot, you do not have to have different CTB's for full and half. 

Try telling that "new" trick to the old dogs here.

[David Hall]

Are you color blind?  That was not meant as an insult but a legitimet question.  I have 2 older/wiser drafters that cant see certain colors, so we adjusted our ctb to accomodate our staff.  Dark blue and dark magenta were eliminated from the scheme b/c they faded into the background color (before you say change the background color, this was before that was an option).  Now its been to many years with too many drawngs to change it now.

[Josh Nieman]

Are you color blind?  That was not meant as an insult but a legitimet question.  I have 2 older/wiser drafters that cant see certain colors, so we adjusted our ctb to accomodate our staff.  Dark blue and dark magenta were eliminated from the scheme b/c they faded into the background color (before you say change the background color, this was before that was an option).  Now its been to many years with too many drawngs to change it now.

Me?

If so, no.  Why do you ask?  Though we shy away from the colors that sort of fade away from a black BG, I use them intentionally so for non-plotting layers so that the eyes can easily ignore those lines and focus on the main drawing.

[CaddmannQ]

We use a sort of "color family" system for the ctb.

Grey (color 8 or something close to color 8 ) is the lightest weight or .003"
Violets/magenta=.006"
Reds/pinks = .009"
yellow/orange/brown/all "earth tones" = .014"
all greens = .018
cyan & all blues = .024"
all purples = .030"
white = .042"

In truth, we use at most 3 standard colors in any given family, but if someone wants to use more they are available according to those rules.

Anything wider is done with a wide polyline and the color is usually according to the medium width color in the respective category (keep reading.)

Layers are assigned a two-part name.

First part is a single letter and is a category desnigator:
B for beams
C for columns
N for notes
H for hardware, etc.
(there are 12 standard categories and the user can make up more as needed)

Second part is the line width designators:
E=extra-extra light. =003"
LE=extra light=.006"
L=light=.009"
M=medium=.014"
H=heavy=.018"
X=extra heavy=.024"
XX=double extra heavy=.030"
XXX=triple extra heavy=.042"

For instance, I would draw a heavy beam on the plan on layer BH, and a really heavy beam or girder on BX or even BXX.

XXX is used almost exclusively for section cut lines, or match lines, or heavy borders, and usually as NXXX ("note triple extra heavy".)

I can type any layer name I want with a few strokes, but the layer name doesn't tell you what the hell you're really looking at like an AIA layer name does. When we look at the drawings we have to know WTH we're looking at, and there are always notations so other people can tell anyway. (You just don't put something on a structural drawing without calling out what it is.)

I don't have to deal with names like "A_wall_remodel_type3_above", and I never have to resort to dialog boxes to set or change layer names; and when I started this system we didn't have no stinkin' dialog boxes anyway. 

[Josh Nieman]

TBH Cadmann... you make fun of that layer name, but I'd find yours just as unusual

[CaddmannQ]

TBH? whazzat TBH?

[Josh Nieman]

TBH? whazzat TBH?

To be honest.

[AUTOKAD]

Keep in mind the one I posted is our HALF-SIZE ctb for plotting 11x17... our full size is exactly double.

I wish there was more logic and order to our color table, but alas, I didn't make it, and I don't want to rock the boat by changing it and possibly messing up old drawings or current projects.

Thanks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible, that instead of making 2 ctb's for full and half size, you can just use one ctb file and just click on the 'scale lineweights' when you plotting half size?

see attachment

[Josh Nieman]

Yea, I think ronjonp already pointed that out... and yea I'm aware... but... *sigh* old dogs here...

I told them that, once, and they kept using the Half Size CTB and also hitting scale lineweights, so they'd end up like half as thick.  After telling them the right way to do it about 3 dozen times i just forgot about it... it wasn't worth the hair I was pulling out over it.

*edit*  oops, fixed name

[ronjonp]

Hey Josh....did you know that you can use scale lineweights? 

[AUTOKAD]

I told them that, once, and they kept using the Half Size CTB and also hitting scale lineweights, so they'd end up like half as thick.  After telling them the right way to do it about 3 dozen times i just forgot about it... it wasn't worth the hair I was pulling out over it.

just curious, so instead of telling them to just click the 'scale lineweights' you (or somebody) have to re-create a 'half size' ctb, because thats what they're used to? Who created the half size ctb? And how old these guys are, if you don't mind me asking.

[mjfarrell]

Auto,


In some of these things it isn't age that has anything to do with it. Either some people just don't 'get' it or they just wont change their habits. Let me give a perfect example; Inked Area Limits as 0,0 in Paperspace. This concept was so difficult for most to get used to and or adopt, that finally Autodesk gave in and in recent versions the user may chose to let the Edge of Paper be 0,0 OR for those that got it Inked Area Limits.  Why? I don't think it was age related, it had to do with folks who did, and still do use 'plot dots' too figure out what to plot when they plot By Window not by Layout, because they just can't or wont change their process, habits, or whatever.

Often my biggest challenge when teaching users MAP, or Civil 3D is to get them to let go of their old processes, and use the software in it's most effective way.  Often they have developed a work flow that doesn't, only they don't want to embrace anything new or different. Even if their way is less than optimal, it 'works' for them, even when they can't see the lost profits, or efficiencies of doing so.

[Josh Nieman]

I told them that, once, and they kept using the Half Size CTB and also hitting scale lineweights, so they'd end up like half as thick.  After telling them the right way to do it about 3 dozen times i just forgot about it... it wasn't worth the hair I was pulling out over it.

just curious, so instead of telling them to just click the 'scale lineweights' you (or somebody) have to re-create a 'half size' ctb, because thats what they're used to? Who created the half size ctb? And how old these guys are, if you don't mind me asking.

I'm the only CAD guy, the rest are engineers, for now.  Got a couple resume's to look over for CAD Techs though... I'm hopeful to get more.

Anyways, their age is relatively young, 34, 29, 26, and the new EIT is like 37 or so.  It's like mjfarrell said... it's just that they don't get it or are just stuck in their habits.

The Full Size and Half Size CTBs were brought over from their last company, mainly.  Their CAD guys were... dense... from what I understand, and the ones that were bright were forced to handicap themselves to suit the dense people who'd been there longer.

These guys are engineers mainly but due to having to do some part-time drafting of their stuff, they are forced to enter the CAD realm with only self-taught and second-hand habits/information.  I can try all I might, but sometimes they just don't care enough (as drafting is not their primary concern as engineers) to change habits that currently work.

[CaddmannQ]

TBH? whazzat TBH?

To be honest.

Well, TBH with you, it is arcane and I know it wouldn't work for everyone. It works for what we do, because we're constantly drawing with a limited selection of element types. Also, bear in mind that it's worked without alteration since the days when we had an 8-pen plotter and had to type layer names. Remember that we were typing layer names when the proposals for AIA-type stardards were first publicised, and we were immediately shell-shocked by the concept of having to type names with 16 characters to change a layer. We were constantly changing layers. We swore we'd never adopt that method, and 16 years (and 12 versions of Autocad) later, we still have not.

Now, with Revit sill (perhaps) looming in our future,  Autodesk says it will become a non-issue. They're gonna take control of all that for us; but after playing with it on the side for a month I still don't see how 100% of the CD's could be efficiently created in Revit.

[Josh Nieman]

Not saying your method is any worse, or anyone elses is any worse... just that's it's unfamiliar, just as the architects method you mentioned is unfamiliar and foreign to you.

We don't even have a standard around here.  Layering standards is what I'm going for next around here.

The boss and I have kind of agreed on an abomination of the AIA standard.

S-FNDTN-REBAR for foundation drawings for the rebar layer
A1-OFFC-WALL-INT for interior walls in the office within the building.. 1st floor
A2-MB-DOOR-EXT for exterior doors in the metal building at the second floor.
C-SITE-UE underground electric for the site....

We have to separate things a decent bit to allow for the flexibility our drawings require to work... turning things on.. off.. freezing, locking, changing visibility within viewports, etc...

It works for us and I don't think it's too illogical... I want people to know what's going on just by looking at the layer... to figure out what should be on it, while still not having a sentence-long layer name.

[CaddmannQ]

I guess a lot depends on how you draw things. For instance we'd never confuse a 1st floor door with one on the second, because each plan in on a different drawing. We're not even intrested in the doors and windows except for location and approximate rough openings. Scheduling architectural items is the client's problem. Of course footprint changes require changing multiple plans, but we rarely do jobs where multiple floors do not radically change plans between floors anyway.

I've done CADD in several industries and diciplines now, and what always makes sense is what makes sense for that particular industry/dicipline. I really appreciate the flexibility of AutoCAD for that reason. If I'm drawing a weldment, or a drill jig, or a casting machine, or a vending machine, or a wine press, or a sliding storefront, or a curtain wall, or a steel framing plan, it can always be tailored to what makes the job easiest.