Topic: NCS in Practice, not theory

[Bob Wahr]

The last thread on the National CAD Standard started out vagueand immediately turned into a pissing match.  I'm hoping that this one is a bit more productive.

Does anyone have a copy of the latest NCS?  The last version I saw was posiible the last release, but more likely the release before that.  At the time, my impression of it was that it was really more of a rough guideline than an actual standard.  I had the impression that they left it intentionally vague and open to interpretation to increase their customer base.  To me, a standard that is different in every office, isn't a standard at all.

The next part of my inquiry is for anyone who has recent experience with the NCS and the A/E/C CADD Standard.  I know that the NCS was originally based off of the Tri-Service CADD Standard which evolved into the A/E/C Std.  The A/E/C Std. states that it is NCS Compliant.  Is that because the NCS is still vague and the A/E/C Std. falls within the guidelines, or is the NCS now a fairly complete standard that the A/E/C Std actually complies with?

[Bob Wahr]

futile bump #only.

[mjfarrell]

I believe that the "Standard" is still NOT "The Standard"  they fail to release a usable document (acad.DWT) that is documented freely that complies with; or addresses the use of said DWT for state, county, or federal drafting projects.

[James Cannon]

Why should they have to release a dwt if they can just produce textual documentation about how to set your own template?

[mjfarrell]

Why should they have to release a dwt if they can just produce textual documentation about how to set your own template?

ease of adopting said 'standard'

however one would guess even they can not create a document to said 'standard'.

[James Cannon]

Why should they have to release a dwt if they can just produce textual documentation about how to set your own template?

ease of adopting said 'standard'

however one would guess even they can not create a document to said 'standard'.

Haven't read it since an older version that was flawed as Bob referred to... so I dunno.

[Ryder76]

My first post here - woo hoo!

CAD Standards are the holy grail of drafting/design.  I haven't been able to read a full copy of the NCS, just the samples they have on the website.  I personally can't afford it and the companies I have worked with in the recent past refuse to buy it. Heck they didn't even see a need for standards. (pulling hair out -running, screaming)

Anyway, based on what I have seen/read it seems to be geared toward architecture and building plans.  I work in the oil and gas industry and previously in nuclear power generation.  What I have done is piping, plant design, and recently electrical power distribution & controls.  What I have seen in the NCS is helpful in that I could create a standard from scratch based on their guidelines/information, but it would not be exactly like theirs.

While working in nuclear power generation standards was not an issue.  We had standards, procedures and guidelines for everything we did.  Document Control and Records Management was tight as a tick.  I miss that environment in that there is a certain comfort working to procedures and standards.  You know what to do, how to check yourself and there isn't any guess work.  Is it challenging and fulfilling working that way? For me it was I always knew I was doing a good job.

FWIW that's my two cents about the NCS.

[cadtag]

FWIW - i  have purchased a copy of NCS v4, the current iteration.  The committee is working on v5 at this point, and submissions for change/updates/modifications are accepted.

Definitely more 'building systems' oriented than other disciplines (eg civil, plant, etc) to date.

 

[sinc]

I also found that it was very "old-school"...  e.g., it still thinks in terms of layers and CTBs.  These days, we use Civil 3D Styles and STBs, and it all seems so quaint...

In practice, it does seem like most people take what they want from the NCS, and ignore the rest...  I think a lot of this was created by the fact that they are so expensive - it is difficult for a "standard" to gain wide-spread adoption when it costs so much.  In my experience, most people who say they are "using NCS" have never even seen the actual NCS spec, and they mainly mean they are using layer names with a format like "C-ROAD-"...

[mjfarrell]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because they make you 'buy in' to the standard.  And then most find that after having vested themselves in said standard it is cumbersome to use, doesn't fit their needs, their consultants aren't, etc...

and mostly because of the fee.... I can even prove it through a simply thought experiment.


Which STANDARD would you use?

LIE Standard...all documentation and drawing templates (seed files) are provided for FREE from the LIE Standards web site.
The STANDARD is reviewed and updated by industry committee, and software vendors providing grant money to develop and administer the standard.

NCS Standard...all documentation for standard comes with a FEE.  The NCS 'standards' based files issued by software partners, is accompanied by NO documentation, or support from the standards committee without a FEE.  WHO are those people any way?

[TimSpangler]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because the make you 'buy in' to the standard. 

That has always been my opinion on standards.  If you have to PAY what kind of standard is it?

[JCTER]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because the make you 'buy in' to the standard. 

That has always been my opinion on standards.  If you have to PAY what kind of standard is it?

IBC?

[TimSpangler]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because the make you 'buy in' to the standard. 

That has always been my opinion on standards.  If you have to PAY what kind of standard is it?

IBC?

That's a CODE not a standard?

[cadtag]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because the make you 'buy in' to the standard. 

That has always been my opinion on standards.  If you have to PAY what kind of standard is it?

Most  ANSI and ISO standards are only available for a fee.  Not sure if anything from ISO.org is free.  The NCS cost is not that high, but do bear in mind that it also include Uniform Drawing System from CSI, and is not just layer names.  there's a lot more to UDS than just the pages from Sandia Labs http://www.sandia.gov/engstds/StdDwgs/UDS_Numbering_Drawings.pdf

[JCTER]

since it's inception I have argued that the NCS will fail to become the standard, simply because the make you 'buy in' to the standard. 

That has always been my opinion on standards.  If you have to PAY what kind of standard is it?

IBC?

That's a CODE not a standard?

Don't really see the difference.  They're sets of rules to go by.  Just meaning to say it's not uncommon for codes/guidelines/standards to require payment for the material.