Author Topic: Army Corp A/E/C Cadd Standard  (Read 3319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pmvliet

  • Guest
Army Corp A/E/C Cadd Standard
« on: February 04, 2005, 03:13:48 PM »
If anyone is using this standard or have based their company Cadd Standard on it, can you say if you like it or what you would change.
Has anyone gone to their training class for the full use of their Cadd Standards?

Thanks,
Pieter

Dent Cermak

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 6914
  • Clinton, Mississippi
Army Corp A/E/C Cadd Standard
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2005, 05:48:52 PM »
We use the standards for all of our Corps work. More and more districts are signing on to the program.
The only problem I have with it is that I don't like the LONG layer names. That's just so stupid! But that's the Corps. I've been doing Corps work since 1968 (34th Engr CO (Base Topographic)). The old hand style manuals were well thought out. In came the computers and no drafters were asked for input, so new and stupid things came along. Slowly they are fixing the system.
Classes ? "We don't need no stinkin classes!!". Seriously, if you will sit down and read the new manual, you will see it's just so straight forward. In my opininon, anyone that needs a formal class on the standards manual needs to put the book down and step away from the computer. McDonald's is hiring. A career change is in your future. It's not rocket science. EVERYTHING you need is in the manual. And like all Army manuals, it's written oin a 5th grade level. No big words.
It's nothing more than a layer list for your discipline and a color/line weight chart. It includes all of the blocks (cells) that you need and tells you where to use them.
The latest edition is available on the internet as a free download. If you are going to print the manual have LOTS of paper on hand. (300+ pages). The blocks/cells for everyone are also available for a FREE download.
Look, if I understand it, ANYONE should be able to work with it!
If you are looking to me for answers, you really have problems. Carlson Survey 2016 w/ Embedded AutoCad

Bob Garner

  • Gator
  • Posts: 2902
Army Corp A/E/C Cadd Standard
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2005, 06:27:21 PM »
I think it's a great reference.  I agree with Dent that somethings ya gotta massage around to better suit yourself, like the long layer names.  It's a free download, take a look.  It is an easy read.  With all due respect to those of us who served, the military has quite a few dim bulbs and they have written it accordingly.  You will have no problems.

Bob

Dent Cermak

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 6914
  • Clinton, Mississippi
Army Corp A/E/C Cadd Standard
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2005, 08:13:01 PM »
All the work in this system is in the initial setup. Once you get your *.dwt file setup and the prototype folder built all is just the same as now. The only thing that you will have to concentrate on is the new layer names. (ALL of your linetypes and color assignments are all ready in the template and prototype files, all the blocks are pre-loaded.) All should operate EXACTLY the same as before, it just now goes to different layers in different colors.
It's a one time thing. I am the only AutoCad guy in my office that normally does Corps work (Most of the jobs require Anygraph.) We have a LOAD of AutoCad projects coming up for the Corps. Many more than I can do at once. Very tight deadlines. All I have done is copy my *.dwt file and the prototype folder to my cohorts computer and he's all ready to go. I have made a page of all of the Layer standards that we will be using so he can set it up by his pooter for easy reference and away he can go. I shouldn't have to hold his hand for anything. If he does everthing like he normaly does he shouldn't notice much difference.
If you are looking to me for answers, you really have problems. Carlson Survey 2016 w/ Embedded AutoCad

sinc

  • Guest
Army Corp A/E/C Cadd Standard
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2005, 08:12:23 AM »
I used the A/E/C standards to come up with some standards for our company.  There are a number of things I don't like about the standard.  Of course, as near as I could tell, it hadn't really changed since 2001 or so.  It's geared toward color-dependant plot styles, although it is setup in such a way that if you ignore the speciified colors, you can modify the standard to use STBs instead.

The biggest problem with the standard is that it is too general.  The way it is defined, it causes way too many things to go on the same level.  In surveying, we end up with 80% of our linework on one of four layers.  I consider this unacceptable in a standard.  Related to this problem, the standard encourages changing individual objects' linetypes.  It defines a broad category, requires all objects in that category to be placed on the same layer, and then specifies three linetypes that can be used for objects on that layer.  So, many objects end up with custom linetypes, not ByLayer.  Not only does this result in, for example, too many yellow objects on the screen, it makes working with drawings really annoying.

However, there were a lot of good ideas in the standard.  So, to come up with the first draft of my company standards, I took the A/E/C standards and used them as a starting point.  I then changed/ignored aspects of the A/E/C standard that are brain-dead.

There's also a piece of software called TSWS that is supposed to make it easier to deal with layer names, linetypes, symbols, etc.  It sucks.  As near as I can tell, it's geared to work with architectural scales (1 drawing unit = 1 inch).  I found some note that indicated it was possible to use it with decimal scales (1 drawing unit = 1 foot), but couldn't find any information on how to go about it, and couldn't get it to work.  Luckily, the software is not very useful.  It might help a bit at first, but Autocad tools such as drawing templates, the Layer Translator, the Symbol Manager, and point description keys are much easier to use.