Please comment on a memo sent round, highlighting company CAD standards

[Spenner]

I think i have open up a can of worms were i work.

A month or so i go i spoke with the I.T. guy who sets the Cad Standards well should do but doesn't set anything really.

I think because i told him how my previous company worked to a very good Standard he didn't like that and this morning set around a Memo and a copy of the Standards which i have never seen until now.

Please read the following Memo and give me your points as i want to give him reason why i believe some points he is making to need to looking into. I just feeling that its his way and nobody is changing it.

Memo

We have recently welcomed new staff to the Company and feel we all need to review our procedures to bring them in line with the QA Manual and CAD Standards.

Please review the following points and adopt where applicable:

• Text font style, height and width to comply with company standard.
• D Text to be used as a company standard, M Text not to be used.
• Lower left justification to be used unless required for text setout.
• Dimension to be set to company standard, in said dim layer, text to be ‘Romans’, text height 2.5mm, with oblique arrow heads, as set out in standard company templates.
• Arrows to be drawn polyline and not leader dimensions, the size of which relative to text height.
• Gridlines to be drawn in the grid layer using Polylines, grids to have node points at all intersections.
• X-ref’s only to be used for drawing frames, unless approved. This resolves binding issues when e-mailing drawings.
• Group is not a company standard and will not be used.
• Layers to be kept to a minimum, added layers should only be introduced if needed, each object does not require its own layer!
• Drawing number system to be followed at all times, see attached sheet.

Please review all company standards regarding the initial setout of drawings and scaling systems.

Please sign below after reading. If you have any questions or queries, please speak to Simon or Brendon.

Regards

Management


All your comments would be good grateful so i can put them back to him.

Cheers

Gareth

[jaberwok]

Hi Gareth.

A small point - it is impossible to NOT use mtext -dimension text is mtext.

Gridlines to be polylines? Why?

"• Lower left justification to be used unless required for text setout."
That's so qualified as to be a pointless statement.

"• Arrows to be drawn polyline and not leader dimensions, the size of which relative to text."
And that's ambiguous.

Take care.

[Ogre]

• Arrows to be drawn polyline and not leader dimensions, the size of which relative to text height.
• Gridlines to be drawn in the grid layer using Polylines, grids to have node points at all intersections.
• X-ref’s only to be used for drawing frames, unless approved. This resolves binding issues when e-mailing drawings.
• Group is not a company standard and will not be used.


Has this IT guy created any programs that will help you all "create" leaders the way he wants them??? If not he is slowing down production and that is what a standard should not do...

How about creating a grid??? Do y'all draw them manually??? :screwy: Another possible choke in production speed....

Has this guy ever heard of e-transmit??? :banghead:

Groups can come in real handy when you cannot union objects together, but the pieces are on different layers...If you do a lot of modular 3D you may want to fight this one...

Do y'all have a CAD Manager? It seems like the IT guy is overstepping his boundaries...One of the best things about where I work is that the IT people know where they are the best at and none of them know CAD like I do...They leave those type of decisions up to me and let me do what needs to be done to increase production...Now if it conflicts with IT regulations, that is when I step back and find another way...I have always thought that IT deals with the computers and the CAD Manager takes care of the workstations...

I hope you do well in persuading this guy to understand that he does not know it all...

[thomas.stright]

Sounds like he needs to stick with IT.... He's creating more work for you, not helping...

[H'Angus]

What version of Acad are you using? As using these standards you may as well cancel any subscriptions you may have and go back to using R14 or earlier - what a joke!

As mentioned quite clearly by the replies above the I.T guy should stick to I.T stuff, upgrades, networks, user accounts, backups etc.

I personally believe that if you do not use a program on a regular basis whatever that program is, Acad, ADT, Revit, Word, Excel. Access etc, then you are quite simply not in a qualified position to enforce your preferred methods of working on others. Further more I expect you yourself know (through experience) all sorts of other commands and methods which Mister IT man has never heard of or never will.

Whats that saying - Jack of all trades master of one. You have probably picked up a bit of knowledge about IT stuff but I doubt your going to start telling your IT department what they should be doing, and so it should be the other way around.

Just my 2p worth.

[Spenner]

Well to answer some of your questions guy's.

We are using AutoCAD LT2000.... Old now i know i have tried to get them to upgrade but they are having none of it.

The I.T. Guy/CAD Manager if you can call him that has not written any programmes to do anything to help with AutoCAD.
I have got loads of great LISP Programmes which i have brought with me from my previous company which i cant use because we are using software from the last century.

I have tried to pass on information that i know the help the company move forward but as normal we are not doing that.

[Opie]

Well to answer some of your questions guy's.

We are using AutoCAD LT2000.... Old now i know i have tried to get them to upgrade but they are having none of it.

The I.T. Guy/CAD Manager if you can call him that has not written any programmes to do anything to help with AutoCAD.
I have got loads of great LISP Programmes which i have brought with me from my previous company which i cant use because we are using software from the last century.

I have tried to pass on information that i know the help the company move forward but as normal we are not doing that.
Not necessarily from the last century, it just doesn't have the full functionality of the full version. If your I.T. / CAD Manager has not used the full version, then he wouldn't know that some customization is available.

Best of luck.

[Maverick91]

I think i have open up a can of worms were i work.

A month or so i go i spoke with the I.T. guy who sets the Cad Standards well should do but doesn't set anything really.

I think because i told him how my previous company worked to a very good Standard he didn't like that and this morning set around a Memo and a copy of the Standards which i have never seen until now....

I wasn't there when you had the initial conversation with the IT guy. Unfortunately, it sounds like the waters were muddied from the start. Office politics being what it seems, I think the IT guy is feeling a little defensive. You may have an uphill battle on your hands educating management about how CAD guys should do the CAD management and IT guys should do the IT management, and the differences therein.

[Robert.Hall]

Do you have an actual document that details the company standards?
My suggestion would be to get said "item" and offer a few suggestions for changes.
I have always believed in the following statement:
"If you don't like something, then offer up a suggestion."

Why consider things unfair? It doesn't look good on paper.

[julie_tirone]

I don’t know, but it sounds like you may have joined a small company where their version of ACAD suits their needs quite adequately (they’ve kept it simple, just a couple of steps up from manual drafting) and are not interested in the expense of upgrading, training, developing a tool that, presently, gets them from A to B. It might be a hard sell to convince Management that they need to adapt to a more current methodology in CAD drafting-what would be the payoff from their investment of money and time when, as far as they can see, things are working just fine, Thank you very much.
Perhaps if you could present a specific scenario where a tweak here or a new way of thinking there would increase productivity or reduce a repetitive operation (could limit user input error, etc.). You may want to collaborate with your IT colleague-get him on board, if you can. Or it may be that you’ll have to ‘dumb’ down your CAD skills for the duration while looking for somewhere more up to speed for you.
Depends on how long you plan on staying there, your tolerance level for frustration and how you see your chances of effecting changes.
Cheers and The Best of British.

[Ogre]

We are using AutoCAD LT2000....


While I do not know too much about LT, I know you can use DEISEL and scripts to customize (what a beating :banghead: )...If they are not into upgrading, then I know that ARX is out of the picture...

If he does not want to change, let him know what features are in LT 2000 that will help productivity...If that does not work, sit down with stopwatch and a drawing and stick to the standards...Then do the same using the features that you know will be faster...Look at the times then take it to him and y'all's boss...If the IT guy does not want to save the company money I guarantee that he will be out...

You can also download the newest version of LT and take it for a 30 day test run...Do some sample drawings and time them...Use the new features as much as you can...Take advantage of the Sheet Set Managet and especially Publish (that has saved us quite a few man hours)...Robert Green has some great info on how to show how to present ROI on new investments... http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=319282 ...

[hughrjt]

Gareth, I would agree with all the above replies. I would not agree with most of the proposed standards outlined by your IT guy.

This problem is not uncommon, sometimes these guys see the evolution of Cad control as an extension of their own domain. It really is a specialist skill in its own right and understanding the implementation of a workable common sense cad standard requires thorough knowledge of Cad.

There are plenty postings on Cad Standards on the AUGI forums which you could use to support your position.

As Julie mentioned it may worthwhile trying to collaborate with this guy and perhaps adopt some political meandering - you know the type of thing suggest new initiatives in such a way as to make it seem like it was his suggestion! Talk to a politician they do it all the time.

The other way is to look at the cost impact of a workable cad standard v the IT proposal. Management will always understand the figures at the bottom of the page particularly if you can show a productivity gain and cost saving.

Finally you can ask the IT chap to produce a letter of attorney to support his position to define cad standards.

[julie_tirone]

Not sure what it is with some Management and their reluctance to embrace CAD. It’s like they feel they have given us an expensive toy (could be because we have so much fun with it!) and we should be satisfied with that. They don’t want to get involved with something they don’t or want to understand and I’m sure your IT guy probably feels the same way-it’s not his main focus and is more of a pain in the @ss than he would like.
But to involve him in a way that makes use of his expertise, benefits the CAD production and saves the company money would be a win-win scenario.
Maybe take him out for a pint (or THREE) and say you think you may have started out on the wrong foot but with the best of intentions. That having experienced a different way of utilizing CAD you’d like the company to be able to benefit from the knowledge you bring and to build on the foundation already in place with his collaboration. If he’s interested and seems enthusiastic about trying something new, then it could be a go and if he’s not then you can’t keep floggin’ a dead horse. Worth a shot though.

Cheers

[daniel.dennin]

I would assume that the outlawing of Mtext has something to do with viewers used in other areas; we have seen this problem with older versions of viewers. I cannot unserstand why anyone would want to go through the trouble of creating arrows via polylines unless they are large indicator arrows, the size of the arrow on leaders is not defined by text size.

Some of these items seem to be leftovers from earlier versions of AutoCAD and various viewers, which may be the only experience your IT guy has with CAD. It may be time to try and address these issues. I would be careful, since he was kind enough to open the memo with "Hey the New Guy thinks we have a problem..." seems like a danger sign.

[Slash]

Sounds like he needs to stick with IT.... He's creating more work for you, not helping...

My thoughts exactly....some companies have their IT Dept. do all the CAD standards but these guys sometimes having got a 'ING clue about how CAD actually works. All they know is how to install it and obtain extyra licenses and in my opinion that's what they should stick to.

[jaberwok]

All they know is how to install it and obtain extyra licenses and in my opinion that's what they should stick to.

I've met some who weren't that capable.

[sschwartz]

This is SOOOO basic cad. All you need to do is to know how to draw a line and to draft. Is that what they are going for??
But, you really need to literally prove to them for a long period of time that you CAN work with those standards first. Then, figure out WHY they need it so basic. (and I mean BASIC). Then, in what way can you modify/adjust the standards and prove its benefits over a period of time.

And Good Luck with THAT!

[H.Hunter]

I know exactly where this is all coming from. We kinda have had the problem. We had standards, but they weren't updated in years and then all the sudden we go from R14 to 2002, changed network topology and did other things and all the sudden our standards are no good. So we're back at square 1 more-or-less.

I will say one thing: Someone that does not work with CAD on a daily basis shoudl not be writing CAD Standards.

The other thing is that standards need to be kept up-to-date with technology. The CUI is one great example of those things. It's changed and anything related in standards needs to be modified.

[jaberwok]

I know exactly where this is all coming from. We kinda have had the problem. We had standards, but they weren't updated in years and then all the sudden we go from R14 to 2002, changed network topology and did other things and all the sudden our standards are no good. So we're back at square 1 more-or-less.

I will say one thing: Someone that does not work with CAD on a daily basis shoudl not be writing CAD Standards.

The other thing is that standards need to be kept up-to-date with technology. The CUI is one great example of those things. It's changed and anything related in standards needs to be modified.

Why would CAD standards refer to the CUI?
They are about producing drawings and should be broadly applicable to any CAD software and any release.

£0.02

[H.Hunter]

Why would CAD standards refer to the CUI?
They are about producing drawings and should be broadly applicable to any CAD software and any release.

£0.02It was an example...sheesh. So for a better example: the options/configuration settings need to be updated as things are changed and added (e.g. Templates, ToolPalettes, etc).

That a better one?

Although it also depends how indepth your standards are. Granted, maybe the CUI was a bad example, but some standards could encapsulate more than others'.

[H'Angus]

Why would CAD standards refer to the CUI?
They are about producing drawings and should be broadly applicable to any CAD software and any release.

£0.02

Agreed, our text sizes etc are still loosely based on hand drawing standards.

[jrebennack]

Quote:

"• D Text to be used as a company standard, M Text not to be used."

What? DTEXT blows!

[jaberwok]

Quote:

"• D Text to be used as a company standard, M Text not to be used."

What? DTEXT blows!

Horses for courses.

What's sauce for the goose isn't necessarily sauce for the gander.

[Doodlemusmaximus]

I feel your pain here, seems that you'll have a really difficult problem trying to get somewhere with this guy.


Just take it one step at a time softly, softy breaks no eggs is the old saying. You'll not want to aggravate the situation as he could have been there for a while and is firmly entrenched. try suggesting (nicely) to get him on board, even by trying to get him thinking it came from him maybe. Failing that, smile think about how much you get in your bank account and look for pastures new, passing the problem onto someone else.

[jcotey]

Spenner,
Has the IT guy ever seen a copy of the National CAD Standards? Version 4 should soon be available.
I remember when when the CAD team was the IT team as well. But the two fields have since been seperated in most businesses. Sounds like he's out of his realm.
Good luck with that.
Jon

[Statler]

Whilst I totaly agree with CAD standards and god help anybody that doesn't confirm to them if I ever get to the lofty position of CAD Manager.

Why is it that so many standards out there try to constrain draghters to a particular way of working within CAD. What the standards are there for is to ensure that all drawings look like they come from the same company and that anybody within that company can pick up a drawing and edit it with ease.

Does it realy matter if its dtext or mtext both edit on the same command. One of the most annoying ones i've come across is all sections must look right, great until you want to do a sectional elevation on a left facing wall. :roll:

Another thread on here was talking about having company standard pgp's. Is the next step all tool bars have to be in the same place.

Company standards should be followed but lets make them sensible and logical to follow without dictating how people should produce the individual elements otherwise they will just rebel as its easier.

[dgorsman]

DTEXT vs. MTEXT can make a difference if objects are being automatically processed. While it would be nice if designers could do everything they wanted, adherence to what the client wants comes first; the company, second; the designer... thats well down the totem pole.

And yeah, toolbars are going to be locked into place for a month or two after we upgrade to 2008 (from 2005). Its going to take at least a week to train the "power users" how to manage the workspacs, dashboard, toolpalettes, etc. in the CUI, let alone the other 40-some-odd users. Giving the that kind flexibiltiy right off the bat would have me running around trying to show each of them individually how to do it - and fixing the resultant problems the next day.

[cadpro78]

[• Text font style, height and width to comply with company standard.


• D Text to be used as a company standard, M Text not to be used.
• Lower left justification to be used unless required for text setout.
• Dimension to be set to company standard, in said dim layer, text to be ‘Romans’, text height 2.5mm, with oblique arrow heads, as set out in standard company templates.
• Arrows to be drawn polyline and not leader dimensions, the size of which relative to text height.
• Gridlines to be drawn in the grid layer using Polylines, grids to have node points at all intersections.
• X-ref’s only to be used for drawing frames, unless approved. This resolves binding issues when e-mailing drawings.
• Group is not a company standard and will not be used.
• Layers to be kept to a minimum, added layers should only be introduced if needed, each object does not require its own layer!
• Drawing number system to be followed at all times, see attached sheet

===>>>> Maybe like 1 or 2 of those things seems reasonable like the text height and having uniform office standard,...but this guy needs to have his head examined IMO. Arrows to be drawn polyline and not by leader dim? Xrefs only to be used for drawing frames? All I got to say to these "rules" are apparently he wants people working very slow and not get stuff down. I know I wouldn't be signing that sheet of paper and explaining the reasons why I wouldn't sign a document like that.

[tedg]

Wow!
One question, has this IT guy ever done any cadd work?
I mean real in-the-trenches, full time production?

Maybe he should stick to IT and leave the drafting to the professionals.
It appears he doesn't know enough about it to set policy.

I understand that if it's a small company, you don't need to do too much fancy stuff, but polyline arrows instead of leaders? Xrefs with permission? No Mtext? Come on!

I know it's been already asked but.. Is there an actual cadd manual? Are there templates and blocks, dimension styles, text styles set up to help speed up the process?

I agree with the others, come up with some scenarios to point out some of the issues. Scenarios using the bad, money-costing methods, and some time & money saving methods for the IT guy (and his boss) to look at and compare.

Like just having the approved layers, dimension styles, text styles (etc.) set up in a template does wonders for production. If they want a specific arrow head on their leaders, set up a dimstyle with a user-arrow so you can grip it and move it like a leader.

[jmctamney]

Wow!
One question, has this IT guy ever done any cadd work?
I mean real in-the-trenches, full time production?

Maybe he should stick to IT and leave the drafting to the professionals.
It appears he doesn't know enough about it to set policy.

I understand that if it's a small company, you don't need to do too much fancy stuff, but polyline arrows instead of leaders? Xrefs with permission? No Mtext? Come on!

I know it's been already asked but.. Is there an actual cadd manual? Are there templates and blocks, dimension styles, text styles set up to help speed up the process?

I agree with the others, come up with some scenarios to point out some of the issues. Scenarios using the bad, money-costing methods, and some time & money saving methods for the IT guy (and his boss) to look at and compare.

Like just having the approved layers, dimension styles, text styles (etc.) set up in a template does wonders for production. If they want a specific arrow head on their leaders, set up a dimstyle with a user-arrow so you can grip it and move it like a leader.

After doing CAD for 13 years now I've come to one conclusion regarding CAD standards. There is no such thing as a CAD "standard" it's more of a CAD "guideline" giving the user some leeway to get thier job done. With most people being on subscription you should be constantly updating the "standard" for new features. We are in the process of re-working ours because we are trying implement annotative text and multileaders.

[troy.osgood]

After doing CAD for 13 years now I've come to one conclusion regarding CAD standards. There is no such thing as a CAD "standard" it's more of a CAD "guideline" giving the user some leeway to get thier job done. With most people being on subscription you should be constantly updating the "standard" for new features. We are in the process of re-working ours because we are trying implement annotative text and multileaders.


Exactly. Standards should be guidelines to produce drawings that LOOK the same when plotted. HOW the drawings get there shouldn't really matter, as every person has their own ways of producing drawings. Constraining people to working within a strict frame lowers productivity. Some people are faster typing commands where others like using buttons. Let the drafters do it their way.

At the end of the day it's the final LOOK that matters, not the process used to get there.

Standards should be set up to control the LOOK (text style, text height, lineweights, etc..) and give a very rough structure to work within so anyone can go into any drawing and work in it (not necessarily at normal speed).

Standards should not force people to draft a certain way, it should force people to make sure the end look is the same and consistent.

[nightNday]

Unfortunately, the problem here probably isn't really with the standards. It's with the way the other person is handling the situation. I have encountered this. If you sat with him and you two worked TOGETHER to create/modify the standards, he'd probably be just peachy. But he probably (I am using "he" as just a filler) felt slightly threatened by you, or he's just afraid of change. That is why he pulled a power play and sent out that memo. I was 'trying to put you in your place'. I've been put in that place a few times. The only way to do it is to assure him that you're not going to go through the network all willy nilly and destroy everything. Remind him that you are working on these drawings (too?) and that you wouldn't do anything that would cause you pain and suffering would you? I've had to remind my latest standards enforcer of this a few times. I may be a masochist, but there is no way in h3ll that I'm messin with the CAD at the office. ;) Good luck.

[jmctamney]

Exactly. Standards should be guidelines to produce drawings that LOOK the same when plotted. HOW the drawings get there shouldn't really matter, as every person has their own ways of producing drawings. Constraining people to working within a strict frame lowers productivity. Some people are faster typing commands where others like using buttons. Let the drafters do it their way.

At the end of the day it's the final LOOK that matters, not the process used to get there.

Standards should be set up to control the LOOK (text style, text height, lineweights, etc..) and give a very rough structure to work within so anyone can go into any drawing and work in it (not necessarily at normal speed).

Standards should not force people to draft a certain way, it should force people to make sure the end look is the same and consistent.

One thing to add is there should be significant programing to help the users adhere to the standards. We use a partial CUI for company standards and keep everything centraly located on the network so you don't have rogue users changing everything to suite thier needs.

[Statler]

I've just got this image of a guy with a big stick walking up and down rows of draughters all facing the same direction saying,

Line, 2 ,3,
Endpoint 2, 3,
Midpoint 2, 3,
Now circle 2, 3,

I know some people need this to produce anything decent but thats for another thread.

[jmctamney]

I've just got this image of a guy with a big stick walking up and down rows of draughters all facing the same direction saying,

Line, 2 ,3,
Endpoint 2, 3,
Midpoint 2, 3,
Now circle 2, 3,

I know some people need this to produce anything decent but thats for another thread.

I commonly refer to those type of people as CAD nazis

[dxarhoulakos]

Exactly. Standards should be guidelines to produce drawings that LOOK the same when plotted. HOW the drawings get there shouldn't really matter, as every person has their own ways of producing drawings. Constraining people to working within a strict frame lowers productivity. Some people are faster typing commands where others like using buttons. Let the drafters do it their way.

At the end of the day it's the final LOOK that matters, not the process used to get there.

Standards should be set up to control the LOOK (text style, text height, lineweights, etc..) and give a very rough structure to work within so anyone can go into any drawing and work in it (not necessarily at normal speed).

Standards should not force people to draft a certain way, it should force people to make sure the end look is the same and consistent.

I agree with you partially. This idea of "the end result is what matters most" is a common misconception in my opinion. This may have been true in the days of hand drafting, but it can no longer hold true now.

One of the most important aspects of electronic files, is the fundamental ability to reuse them, and alter them over and over again.... This being the case, it is extremely important to maintain the fidelity of the file. Whether it be a layer standard, or properly constructed blocks, etc. It may look great on paper, but what if all the doors were created with lines and circles, and we're never created as blocks? What id that plan needs to be reused somewhere down the road?

The legacy of files, needs to be considered while working on drawings. Good CAD standards help to facilitate this.

I do agree that people should be free to "use" the tool there own way with regards to buttons, and typing, and how you ultimately draw a line from 0,0 to 10,10. But the layer that line goes on, needs to be standardized.

[jaberwok]

Exactly. Standards should be guidelines to produce drawings that LOOK the same when plotted. HOW the drawings get there shouldn't really matter, as every person has their own ways of producing drawings. Constraining people to working within a strict frame lowers productivity. Some people are faster typing commands where others like using buttons. Let the drafters do it their way.

At the end of the day it's the final LOOK that matters, not the process used to get there.

Standards should be set up to control the LOOK (text style, text height, lineweights, etc..) and give a very rough structure to work within so anyone can go into any drawing and work in it (not necessarily at normal speed).

Standards should not force people to draft a certain way, it should force people to make sure the end look is the same and consistent.

I agree with you partially. This idea of "the end result is what matters most" is a common misconception in my opinion. This may have been true in the days of hand drafting, but it can no longer hold true now.

One of the most important aspects of electronic files, is the fundamental ability to reuse them, and alter them over and over again.... This being the case, it is extremely important to maintain the fidelity of the file. Whether it be a layer standard, or properly constructed blocks, etc. It may look great on paper, but what if all the doors were created with lines and circles, and we're never created as blocks? What id that plan needs to be reused somewhere down the road?

The legacy of files, needs to be considered while working on drawings. Good CAD standards help to facilitate this.

I do agree that people should be free to "use" the tool there own way with regards to buttons, and typing, and how you ultimately draw a line from 0,0 to 10,10. But the layer that line goes on, needs to be standardized.

If the word "structure" is substituted for the word "look" in Troy's post you are both in agreement. Control the use of the correct tools but not necessarily the method of applying those tools.
Many of our "superiors" and clients really do only consider the look though; mainly because they don't know any better.

[dxarhoulakos]

If the word "structure" is substituted for the word "look" in Troy's post you are both in agreement. ....


Thats a big IF. I think we are saying 2 different things...you are correct about a lot of peopel in the industry feeling this way. That doesn't make it right though.

The legacy of any electronic file, has to be considered during its creation.

[dsthilare]

lol no MTEXT....

Ya right.. o_0

[bjames.164872]

If there are 2 or more people in the company that work with the drawings, then standards are very important. Even if there is only one drafter, then standards are still important for QC purposes.

Almost as important as standards and quality is efficiency. Some of these standards don't seem to be compatible with efficiency.

This is a good one.
• Text font style, height and width to comply with company standard.

I'm not sure about this. I'm accustomed to using dtext and I like it, and I have lisp programs to work with dtext entities. But I also recognize situations where mtext would be more efficient.
• D Text to be used as a company standard, M Text not to be used.

Good one
• Lower left justification to be used unless required for text setout.

Good one
• Dimension to be set to company standard, in said dim layer, text to be ‘Romans’, text height 2.5mm, with oblique arrow heads, as set out in standard company templates.

I don't know about this. Seems that the autocad leader entity would be more efficient
• Arrows to be drawn polyline and not leader dimensions, the size of which relative to text height.

I don't understand this. We draw gridlines as line entities, and we can snap column locations to the intersection of gridlines. Plus it is easier to edit the gridlines as projects evolve, and projects always evolve and change.
• Gridlines to be drawn in the grid layer using Polylines, grids to have node points at all intersections.

Not sure I understand this. We make extensive use of XREF's, We don't have to email drawings that frequently, but you can bind the drawing or do like I do and make a copy of the drawing for the client, then remove the xref's and insert them as blocks.
• X-ref’s only to be used for drawing frames, unless approved. This resolves binding issues when e-mailing drawings.

I haven't gotten into groups. I do use blocks a lot though.
• Group is not a company standard and will not be used.

Layer standards are very important. We follow this rule strictly, but we do add layers when needed for specific projects.
• Layers to be kept to a minimum, added layers should only be introduced if needed, each object does not require its own layer!

This is important, but we have to adjust for the needs of our different clients.
• Drawing number system to be followed at all times, see attached sheet.


But the biggest problem I see in this whole thread is that you're using LT. If I had to use LT, I estimate that it would take me about 50% longer to produce my work. At the level of work I do, the increased productivity of full autocad would pay for the cost of full autocad in about 4 weeks.

[Mike.Craven]

I just read this through...

You said originally that this guy was an IT guy...wow, talk about over reaching...CAD nazi indeed. Tell him to stick to what he's good at...certainly not developing standards for CAD Deliverables. Astounding.

[nigel.pogson]

Theres two options available to you in this either get him relinquished of his CAD responsibilities or Leave.

I've heard some backward thinking ideas before but nothing like this. Its like Acad v12 exists and we've not moved forward since then.

Reading about the Dtext and polyline leaders makes me want to lie down in a corner. You'd best not mention to him about multileaders and annotative text then. He needs to get into the 21st century and quick.

I have known people like him and believe me, once found out, they don't last long.

[Ken.Leary]

I deal with a wide variety of CAD department configurations when I work with subconsultants on a lot of my projects. I've seen some pretty backwards CAD standards but this has to top the list.

Anyone who still wants Dtext to be used should either attend some type of training on the newer versions of AutoCAD or they should step aside.

The amount of efficiency tools that have been added to AutoCAD since the 2000 release would number in the dozens. From the perspective of your companies management, this person is costing your company a significant amount of work-hours per year. That's money coming out of everybody's pockets.

One of the first rules of CAD management is to stay with the current technology or stay out of the way.

It may be easy for him to justify that change would cost money, but how much is not changing costing your company?

[ameador]

MText is truly the only way to go for ease of editting and manipulation.

Some of those things listed are scary wrong.

Any update on how it is going?

[Richard.Kent]

I think i have open up a can of worms were i work.

A month or so i go i spoke with the I.T. guy who sets the Cad Standards well should do but doesn't set anything really.

I think because i told him how my previous company worked to a very good Standard he didn't like that and this morning set around a Memo and a copy of the Standards which i have never seen until now.

Please read the following Memo and give me your points as i want to give him reason why i believe some points he is making to need to looking into. I just feeling that its his way and nobody is changing it.

Memo

We have recently welcomed new staff to the Company and feel we all need to review our procedures to bring them in line with the QA Manual and CAD Standards.

Please review the following points and adopt where applicable:

• Text font style, height and width to comply with company standard.
• D Text to be used as a company standard, M Text not to be used.
• Lower left justification to be used unless required for text setout.
• Dimension to be set to company standard, in said dim layer, text to be ‘Romans’, text height 2.5mm, with oblique arrow heads, as set out in standard company templates.
• Arrows to be drawn polyline and not leader dimensions, the size of which relative to text height.
• Gridlines to be drawn in the grid layer using Polylines, grids to have node points at all intersections.
• X-ref’s only to be used for drawing frames, unless approved. This resolves binding issues when e-mailing drawings.
• Group is not a company standard and will not be used.
• Layers to be kept to a minimum, added layers should only be introduced if needed, each object does not require its own layer!
• Drawing number system to be followed at all times, see attached sheet.

Please review all company standards regarding the initial setout of drawings and scaling systems.

Please sign below after reading. If you have any questions or queries, please speak to Simon or Brendon.

Regards

Management


All your comments would be good grateful so i can put them back to him.

Cheers

Gareth

Here is my comment. He clearly doesn't know enough about the use of CAD to be in charge of it. However, I would discipline you or fire you for posting an internal document on the web. This is not professional behaviour; you are posting this for all to see and you are not dealing with this in a more direct, constructive manner. And for future reference, no one likes a new guy to come in and tell those in charge "that's not they do it over there". When you start in a new company you first learn how things are done there and why, this takes months not weeks or days. During this time you establish yourself as someone that works hard to learn the new "standards". Later after you have aquired some credibility then you can start slowly suggesting changes. An organization is like a large ship, it takes a while to steer it in another direction.