Author Topic: National cad standards  (Read 379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FriendFromArea51

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 709
  • Mars sucks!
National cad standards
« on: November 04, 2017, 02:45:18 pm »
Anyone know if the national cad standard layers for all the disciplines are in excel form anywhere?

BIGAL

  • Newt
  • Posts: 102
  • 30 + years of using Autocad
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2017, 07:54:12 pm »
1st where are you in the world ?

2nd cad standards are just all over the place even between government authorities wanting different things I can think of at least 3.

3rd common sense should prevail no random naming every one on same page. Layers colours linetypes etc. mspace xrefs layouts.

4th Google Cad standards I know on Cadutor there was some stuff.

Lastly had a state authority tell us some stuff on a traffic plan was wrong and looked at plans done for them and it was the same as ours so we will not change and will argue check your own in house rules first. Problem is they are so old school using basicly 2 colours cyan and Black.

A man who never made a mistake never made anything

FriendFromArea51

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 709
  • Mars sucks!
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2017, 09:05:15 pm »
Found what I need, but thanks!

1st where are you in the world ?

2nd cad standards are just all over the place even between government authorities wanting different things I can think of at least 3.

3rd common sense should prevail no random naming every one on same page. Layers colours linetypes etc. mspace xrefs layouts.

4th Google Cad standards I know on Cadutor there was some stuff.

Lastly had a state authority tell us some stuff on a traffic plan was wrong and looked at plans done for them and it was the same as ours so we will not change and will argue check your own in house rules first. Problem is they are so old school using basicly 2 colours cyan and Black.

dgorsman

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2254
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2017, 10:26:37 am »
Lastly had a state authority tell us some stuff on a traffic plan was wrong and looked at plans done for them and it was the same as ours so we will not change and will argue check your own in house rules first. Problem is they are so old school using basicly 2 colours cyan and Black.

Don't you just love it when a client dictates "Thou shalt ALWAYS use our settings, lest they be rejected on submittal.", then when you receive requested DWG files they don't follow those settings?   :grumpy:
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.

try {GreatPower;}
   catch (notResponsible)
      {NextTime(PlanAhead);}
   finally
      {MasterBasics;}

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14148
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2017, 10:55:01 am »
And.....


after all this time IT still is NOT the 'national' cad 'standard'
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

FriendFromArea51

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 709
  • Mars sucks!
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2017, 01:07:03 pm »
Lmao...good point


And.....


after all this time IT still is NOT the 'national' cad 'standard'

Randall Culp

  • Newt
  • Posts: 47
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2017, 02:11:30 pm »
And.....

after all this time IT still is NOT the 'national' cad 'standard'

It never will be as long as it is ONLY an architectural standard, the rest of us don't need 75 layers pertaining to doors and windows
Randy Culp
(AKA CADaver)

Rob...

  • King Gator
  • Posts: 3782
  • Take a little time to stop and smell the roses.
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2017, 04:26:54 pm »
It never will be as long as it is ONLY an architectural standard, the rest of us don't need 75 layers pertaining to doors and windows

... and they stop charging so dam much for it.
CAD Tech

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14148
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2017, 04:53:35 pm »
It never will be as long as it is ONLY an architectural standard, the rest of us don't need 75 layers pertaining to doors and windows

... and they stop charging so dam much for it.

True...

I argue that to gain acceptance and to increase its footprint it should have been released for FREE.
Only charging for it AFTER it had market saturation, but their fees are the hurdle many don't want to cross....so there it is.
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

Rob...

  • King Gator
  • Posts: 3782
  • Take a little time to stop and smell the roses.
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2017, 04:59:53 pm »
It never will be as long as it is ONLY an architectural standard, the rest of us don't need 75 layers pertaining to doors and windows

... and they stop charging so dam much for it.

True...

I argue that to gain acceptance and to increase its footprint it should have been released for FREE. their fees are the hurdle many don't want to cross....so there it is.

I think I just heard hell freeze over...
(I actually feel the same about this part. Didn't think I would ever admit to agreeing with you.)
CAD Tech

dgorsman

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2254
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2017, 05:22:32 pm »
Meh.  If they switched from free to paid-access, then the complaints would switch to "extortion", "lock in", or other popular term-of-the-day for "I want it therefore it should be free".  At that point it may as well be paid-only in the first place.
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.

try {GreatPower;}
   catch (notResponsible)
      {NextTime(PlanAhead);}
   finally
      {MasterBasics;}

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14148
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2017, 05:33:49 pm »
Meh.  If they switched from free to paid-access, then the complaints would switch to "extortion", "lock in", or other popular term-of-the-day for "I want it therefore it should be free".  At that point it may as well be paid-only in the first place.

True,  I just cant see how they ever convinced anyone to PAY for a standard that really was NOT the standard.

Very backward thinking in many ways.
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

dgorsman

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2254
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2017, 10:26:05 am »
You mean the same way people pay for software which is not the standard?  It's done, because it meets their needs and (if they've done their homework) it's more financially viable than developing their own from scratch.  Being perceived as any kind of "official standard" doesn't enter into it.
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.

try {GreatPower;}
   catch (notResponsible)
      {NextTime(PlanAhead);}
   finally
      {MasterBasics;}

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14148
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2017, 10:49:17 am »
You mean the same way people pay for software which is not the standard?  It's done, because it meets their needs and (if they've done their homework) it's more financially viable than developing their own from scratch.  Being perceived as any kind of "official standard" doesn't enter into it.

Actually no, the software is a tool.


This other thing is a group trying to establish some cad standard, without really consulting the industries they are attempting to foist it off on.
Just because they are want to call it 'the standard' doesn't make it so.
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

Randall Culp

  • Newt
  • Posts: 47
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2017, 12:58:49 pm »
"without really consulting the industries they are attempting to foist it off on."
We have a winner!!
Randy Culp
(AKA CADaver)

sljohnson

  • Newt
  • Posts: 21
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2017, 01:09:28 pm »
I've found the USACE to be rather generous with the National cad standards. The first link is the main repository of releases 1.8 to 6 (with a login).

https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/default.aspx?p=a&t=1&i=7

And the individual releases can be found with the search engine of your choice with some patients at various .mil addresses. Release 5 (the last one to provide Autocad and Microstation color index numbers) is at the following link:

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/Engineering/AECStandardR5.pdf

Best,
Shannon

dgorsman

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2254
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2017, 02:01:59 pm »
You mean the same way people pay for software which is not the standard?  It's done, because it meets their needs and (if they've done their homework) it's more financially viable than developing their own from scratch.  Being perceived as any kind of "official standard" doesn't enter into it.

Actually no, the software is a tool.


This other thing is a group trying to establish some cad standard, without really consulting the industries they are attempting to foist it off on.
Just because they are want to call it 'the standard' doesn't make it so.

The NCS is a tool as well.  By that argument, no one could name anything public-facing "standard".

NCS is a good name that reflects what it is: a standard that can (not MUST) be followed.  No one (well, almost no one...   :hahanot: ) is going to confuse that with some moustache-twirling, world-domination-seeking evil villainy.
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.

try {GreatPower;}
   catch (notResponsible)
      {NextTime(PlanAhead);}
   finally
      {MasterBasics;}

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14148
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: National cad standards
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2017, 08:44:34 am »
You mean the same way people pay for software which is not the standard?  It's done, because it meets their needs and (if they've done their homework) it's more financially viable than developing their own from scratch.  Being perceived as any kind of "official standard" doesn't enter into it.

Actually no, the software is a tool.


This other thing is a group trying to establish some cad standard, without really consulting the industries they are attempting to foist it off on.
Just because they are want to call it 'the standard' doesn't make it so.

The NCS is a tool as well.  By that argument, no one could name anything public-facing "standard".

NCS is a good name that reflects what it is: a standard that can (not MUST) be followed.  No one (well, almost no one...   :hahanot: ) is going to confuse that with some moustache-twirling, world-domination-seeking evil villainy.
good thing no one has made that claim
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/