How to convey Existing Linework using NCS?

[david.tucker]

I am trying to revamp our MEP CAD standards to follow the NCS as closely as possible. I don't see any mention in the manual specifically illustrating how an existing object should look vs new work. Our current standard is to use a thin hidden linetype for all existing layers. Personally, I don't like using the hidden linetype to dictate existing work.

If I am reading into the NCS correctly, all objects, be they existing, new or future should be on the medium (.35 mm) line width. This would seem to make it very difficult to tell the phases apart. I tried to stray from what I read and ran a test print showing the existing work all the way down to their fine (.18 mm) width. I just find it difficult to visualize existing vs new.

I would like to know how some of you are differentiating your existing work from your new work, yet following the NCS.


Thanks, Dave

[dgladfelter]

The key to NCS is to document the areas you deviated from the black & white text of the document itself. My firm implemented a new layer standard Q4 2007, and it was modeled around the framework of the NCS. Being a civil/survey shop, we found a number of areas where we needed to add to or amend the NCS itself.

To differentiate between proposed and existing my firm ultimately decided use both screening and dashed linetypes for existing features. Since we are a civil / survey shop, we do have a custom routine that assigns a continuous linetype to existing survey layers when they appear in survey drawings.

After a long round of discussions [CAD Committee], my firm ultimately decided that a combination of screening and dashed linetypes was the best way to differentiate between the two. When exchanging electronic files, we make documentation about our CAD Standard available to our clients. So far this approach has been accepted by any client which has required we work on the NCS.

[tedg]

I am trying to revamp our MEP CAD standards to follow the NCS as closely as possible. I don't see any mention in the manual specifically illustrating how an existing object should look vs new work. Our current standard is to use a thin hidden linetype for all existing layers. Personally, I don't like using the hidden linetype to dictate existing work.

If I am reading into the NCS correctly, all objects, be they existing, new or future should be on the medium (.35 mm) line width. This would seem to make it very difficult to tell the phases apart. I tried to stray from what I read and ran a test print showing the existing work all the way down to their fine (.18 mm) width. I just find it difficult to visualize existing vs new.

I would like to know how some of you are differentiating your existing work from your new work, yet following the NCS.


Thanks, Dave
We are using NCS 3.1, and I don't recall it stating what certain line weights should be, other than general symbols. Even so, NCS is a guideline so I don't think you'll get busted by the NCS police for the wrong line weight :p.

We use .18 and .25 line weights for "existing" and .35 and higher for proposed. We only use dashed or hidden lines when graphically appropriate like a feature above or below the view.

That's what we do any way....

[CADDmanVA]

My firm is merging into NCS 4 right now. I have not seen anything in the NCS speaking against this (yet), but we using screening colors to show existing. 252 and 251 work really well for this, and our contractors have even complimented us on how easy the plans are to read.

[Harold Pei Jr]

My firm is merging into NCS 4 right now. I have not seen anything in the NCS speaking against this (yet), but we using screening colors to show existing. 252 and 251 work really well for this, and our contractors have even complimented us on how easy the plans are to read.

We do the same thing, and I'm not sure which version of the NCS we use currently. I think it might be 3.1

[Comach]

We are using NCS 3.1, and I don't recall it stating what certain line weights should be, other than general symbols. Even so, NCS is a guideline so I don't think you'll get busted by the NCS police for the wrong line weight :p.

That's exactly right - the NCS is a guideline.

It is very comprehensive and concise - but it is the principles therein that should be adopted by companies developing their own cad standards. It would be impossible for the NCS to cover every eventuality and application of cad.

There are potentially some conflicts in the NCS with older established draughting practices and some companies will find it difficult to change. Companies may also have in place their own Standard Operating Procedures which may not conform entirely to the NCS guidelines.

Don't get me wrong - the NCS is well thought out and is actually quite logical - we have something similar here in the UK but there are a few backroom boys here who are unfortunately trying to over-complicate what should be a logical SIMPLE system.

[CADDmanVA]

...Don't get me wrong - the NCS is well thought out and is actually quite logical - we have something similar here in the UK but there are a few backroom boys here who are unfortunately trying to over-complicate what should be a logical SIMPLE system.

The simplicity offered by the NCS actually surprised me. I was fully expecting a rather draconian, ultra-restrictive system.

As far as how to integrate our old ways with the new ways, it was suggested by several at my firm that I write a SOP to help bridge the gap. Since we are primarily Landscape Architecture and land planning, the NCS leaves a large gap in how we do things. NCS 4 looks a great deal better than what 3.1 did.

[dgladfelter]

As already mentioned NCS 3.1 does leave a lot of gaps in the Civil & LA fields. Even still, it took my firm some 6+ months to integrate 9 branch offices together to use a single layer standard, but we did it.

The biggest words of wisdom is spend an adequate amount of time up front to make sure it goes off successfully. A previous CAD Manager "implemented" NCS in my firm by providing a copy of the civil layers in the NCS on the intranet. That method went over like a lead balloon.

Since there were so many gaps, we agreed as a firm what we were going to make such and such feature, and the lineweight etc for those.

After seeing the NCS in action I am now a true believer. It has proven especially easy to train new users on, and also especially expandable. Some are certian to disagree with me, but I personally feel that in the next 5 years, firms not using NCS are going to be the exception not the rule. Already we're having too many projects dictate the usage of NCS for the NCS not to become the dominating standard in the US.