Small Firm Standards

[guitarchitect7]

Hey all,

I was hired a year ago to put together standards that the company can use to help with the productivity of producing CD's. We're a smaller firm that sometimes only needs 2 sheets for our CD's to relay all info to our contractors to complete the job. So what I'm struggling with is how to setup our working drawings and plotted drawings within our current folder structure.

My background has come from larger firms that seem to fit more of the mold of what a lot of you do. But now being here, I begin to question the value of the time to create everything in that aspect for a smaller company. For example:

Typically base drawings are created to use as Xref's into the separate plot drawings that essentially make up your construction drawing sheet set. So you end up having Floor Plan, Elevations, etc. all referenced to their appropriate sheet, with every drawing being separate from the other.

In our case, it seems that sometimes all we have are floor plans, elevations, and electrical drawings. There are schedules but currently are referenced with their appropriate drawing instead of just nesting in their own separate drawing. Since most of this info just fits onto one or two sheets, I begin to question the value of the time to create separate plot sheets when I can just create Layout Tabs to house all the info.

Ideally, I would like to have separate working drawings, but be able to Xref them all into only one plot drawing. This becomes an issue because of circular referencing of drawings. Any visibility changes I make to the Xref Floor Plan that is in the Electrical Drawing is overridden because it now wants to take on the properties of the original floor plan. I hope this all makes sense. So to combat this issue, I now just have all info included in one drawing and not as xrefs. This means that all construction documentation is designed, drawn, and plot in one file. This I think makes for bad security of the drawings.

So what have some of you at much smaller companies do. With each designer only working on their own designs, and my self assisting in that, but not working on it at the same time, there really isn't even an issue with multi-user access.

Thanks a bunch in advance, and feel free to ask questions as I know I don't make things as clear on paper as they seem in my head all the time.

[acote]

Seeing that most of your drawings are one or two sheets I see no need to xref. Xrefs are a valuable tool when you have repetition. We design hotels so our unit plans are xrefs. What you should concentrate on are layer, dimension, font etc... standards and most important is a backup procedure, which I feel you lack by your "This I think makes for bad security of the drawings" statement.

ACote

[guitarchitect7]

Seeing that most of your drawings are one or two sheets I see no need to xref. Xrefs are a valuable tool when you have repetition. We design hotels so our unit plans are xrefs. What you should concentrate on are layer, dimension, font etc... standards and most important is a backup procedure, which I feel you lack by your "This I think makes for bad security of the drawings" statement.

ACote

Actually I have already created and Archive and Submittal Sub Folders under the main project folder to save down all concepts and revisions. All files are backed up every night M-F. So the security is there. But we once had a file that we had to recover. Since all layers were gone and everything was on layer 0 on the recover I had to go through and relayer everything. But since all drawings were separate at that time, I only had to do a small portion, otherwise it could've been much larger if everything was in one file.

I think the approach I may have to look at is how to better organize what is actually drawn in the cad files. Either setting up a grid of where content should be drawn for easy locating, or some other method.

What do you think?

Also, we have layer, dimension, and text styles that we use. Most everything is in place, its just how to structure it to be the most productive.

[Brian Myers]

The use of XREFs are most valuable when you have more than one person working on a project at one time. If this isn't happening then removing XREFs from the process is just fine. But a better question is this:

Why do you want to change?

For just a handful of drawing sheets using XREFs can't be that much slower or less convenient than not using them at all. That doesn't mean containing them in one file isn't a good thing, I'm just trying to understand WHY you want to change? Is there production value to revising your current process? How about bottom-line benefits or coordination benefits?

In the end, working on small projects (something I did for years as a Residential designer/drafter) requires standards, but your productivity benefits come in the form of content libraries, organized tool palettes, proper use of your content browser and well named and properly organized file structures. What is "proper"? Easy access, easy to find, and easy to understand, not buried in dozens of different locations ideally.

Ultimately the number of files you have is less important than how you utilize and access the information in them. I keep in mind the KISS method, if you Keep It Simple in naming, in setup, and in accessibility then XREF or not (assuming the natural advantages of XREFs are not an issue) things will run smoothly for you. If it seems overly complicated or slow, then it likely is.

While I realize this isn't a direct answer to your problem, it's more of a common sense one. Think of the reasons each file is located where it is. Is there a production benefit for it? If not then simplify. If there is a benefit then keep it where it is. Always remember KISS: Keep It Simple (or it will be) Slow (difficult, and often not efficient). ;-)

[MXM]

It shouldn't matter if you are a small firm versus a large firm or your working on a big project versus a large project. Using base or background files that you xref into your sheet files is a sound cad drawing practice. Take a look at the National Cad Standard website for various cad drafting guidelines. See the website below.

http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/ncs_pages.php

[guitarchitect7]

Dilbert, Thanks for the thought out reply.

First off, I think I made the rookie mistake and that was trying to organize and standardize to what I'm use to instead of what actually makes sense. Although the best CAD practices are xref's and such, I need to look at if it will really help with the productivity, communication, and workability of the drawings.

Dilbert, I will try and answer your questions.

Why do you want to change? My total idea was to try and generate organization with the drawings so that any person can open them and understand what is where and why. That was the first issue I saw coming to this company and was my main goal. I then proceeded to think the best way for this was to seperate all the drawings to the file names and the content in them are laid out in a simple way so anyone would know what it is. The struggle becomes to plotting of these seperate sheets.

Is there production value to revising your current process? There is definately a value. With having 3 designers / drafters all doing their own work, I'm trying to unify and standardize the way the final product looks. And also set expectations so that anyone can open the drawing for plotting, revising, ect. and be familiar with the drawing space prior to even seeing it. Although everyone has their way of designing, trying to find a consensus on the way to draft it all. By doing this, it also just helps me because then instead of having to remember tendencies of the designers, I just know what our standards has in place and follow that to a 'T'.

How about bottom-line benefits or coordination benefits? I think just touched on this in the last part of the statement above. Right now, everyone kind of does their own thing. One drawing looks really, really detailed, while the others are fairly plain. Information is just thrown on the drawings where it can fit and it makes it for a hassle for out production guys as they never know where to expect to find what they need. By having everyone on the same page as to where to locate drawings within a drawing or drawings, and then have fairly specific places to place information, then I know how I need to put the drawings together, and the production guys know where to look to find the info. Granite it varies per the job, but in respect if follows the same guidelines.

So in the end, just trying to do what all of you have had to do as some point in your career. But molding it to fit a smaller firm that handles smaller projects, sometimes just one room at a time, and the best way to organize and communicate that info without causing any unecessary headaches to just get there.

Thanks.

[guitarchitect7]

I think I have acessed all the scenerios and have come to a soution.

Single File approach

If I would proceed with this approach, it would allow for quick plotting directly from the working file. It allows everyone to sketch what they want all in one drawing and see how everything relates to the other. Revision become an issue. If a wall moves or some other item, this is not automaticly reflected in other plans (elect, mechan, etc.) and thus either needs revised in multiple areas manually, or redefining a block so they all update. Visibility then becomes an issue. If redefining of blocks is the way to update created electrical plans that overlay the main floor plan, then any visibilty changes ( removal of dimensions, floor plan notes, etc.) that are made are are no longer valid as they would be overriden with the updated block definition.

Multi-Sheet Drawings and Plotting

This method does involve more collaboration between other drawings for modifications. Jumping from one drawing to another is necessary and doesn't allow he natural sketching feel of working with the drawings. Managment of Xrefs is a must to allow for good communication between drawings. The folder direction does get clustered with more drawing files to search through, so good File Naming standards is also a must. Make things clear and simple as to not confuse anyone.

This method increase productivity because it allows one base file to be used and referenced for all drawings with an automatic update anytime a change is made to the base. No need to redefine blocks, visibility changes are retained, and cleaner drawing files are generated.

Plotting becomes takes a bit more time. But by using the Publish command, with save sheet lists, opening past sheet lists will allow for batch plotting of multiple sheet files. A program here would be nice to help automate this process as to help eliminate clicks or explaination of steps.


Although I have one designer who likes the idea of Sheet Tabs in one Sheet File to help him see all sheets and make for easy printing, that way of drafting seems to cause a loss in productivity regarding the actual drawings. Being able to have Xrefs reload upon changes and reflect in all drawings, especially Electrical, this saves the time of having to reset and redefine any blocks in a drawing. It seems the Multipage - MultiSheet structure of drawing files, even if only two drawings, seems to be the best method of moving forward for future drawing structure and layouts.

[Opie]

I'm not as wordy as Dilbert, but for the plotting issue, you could look into the Sheet Set Manager. Using Publish (with or without overrides) will allow you to plot a set of plans quickly without needing to open each drawing or saving a sheet list for publishing.

[guitarchitect7]

I'm not as wordy as Dilbert, but for the plotting issue, you could look into the Sheet Set Manager. Using Publish (with or without overrides) will allow you to plot a set of plans quickly without needing to open each drawing or saving a sheet list for publishing.

I'm a fan of it, but at this point, I think it has more to it than what we need. I feel that going the old school route with having titleblock blocks inserted into the sheets with attributes might be sufficient enough.

Hopefully this new / old way I described above can help with the transition into the SSM.

[Brian Myers]

I'm not as wordy as Dilbert, My friend, I think you know by now nobody on a regular basis is as wordy as I am when I get going. You have 3,000 more official posts, but I bet we are close in total words in technical forums. :beer: ;)

----------------

guitarchitect7: I think you are heading in the right direction! I'll keep adding thoughts as I come up with them. :roll:

[Opie]

Hey, what happened to the remaining 416 posts. :p

------

g- Try out the SSM on one or two projects and see how they work for plotting. If it doesn't work for you, then it wasn't meant to be. On top of the SSM, we (my firm) keep all of the Sheet Set Manager files (*.dst) in one folder, which reduces the need to search through the file structure for a project when you need to make a quick edit/print.

[guitarchitect7]

Hey, what happened to the remaining 416 posts. :p

------

g- Try out the SSM on one or two projects and see how they work for plotting. If it doesn't work for you, then it wasn't meant to be. On top of the SSM, we (my firm) keep all of the Sheet Set Manager files (*.dst) in one folder, which reduces the need to search through the file structure for a project when you need to make a quick edit/print.


I've actually used it on about three projects personally, and still currently using it on one project in particular ( about 20 sheets total, out of the norm of our ways). Overall, once set up, I've liked it. I don't use the name views and just place the whole drawing into the sheet.

I've also setup a different folder structure for it. Under our main project folder where our working files are created, there is a Sub Folder named Sheet Sets. under here you will find four folders for the various printing sizes (8.5, 11x17, C, & D). Under these sub folders are the Sheet Templates used when creating new sheets. This is also where the new sheets will be saved and referenced whenever need be.

I do think we need to re-explore this concept and see if can really be a benefit, but it seems to overwhelm some of our designers, but maybe more training could help with that. I did do a whole Lunch & Learn over the topic, printed up Powerpoint presentation about it, but like everything else in this company, it goes in one ear and out the other.

The only real issue I have with even doing the Multi-Sheet set up is the Layer States. Electrical for instance. Opie did a great job of explaining a process to me which makes complete sense, but required the exportation and importation of a layer state into the final plot sheet file. Now I may be able to be proactive about that and have a reusable layer state family created that just needs imported every time the plot sheet is created, but it does seem a bit redundant when I've already adjusted the layers as I needed them to be able to draw in another drawing. I mean, it almost seems like an extra step just to create the plot sheet and to have to either adjust the visibility all over again, or import a layer state specific to that sheet.

I think this brings me to another question that has been pondering me. Do I have a template file in each New Project Folder that all they need to do is 'Save As' to create new drawings; the same goes for Plot Sheets. Or do you guys use other custom programs to do this stuff for you? I know, I know, SSM falls right into here!!!

Thanks again in advance!

[Opie]

I have developed some templates for the two types of projects we do. Each template contains the layouts we would typically use plus a few more that are decided on per project for their need.

I also use a drawing for an existing stuff basemap and a drawing for a design stuff basemap. If an additional drawing is needed for other stuff, I'll add that as well. It keeps the subject of the drawings segregated and easier to work with. I'll XREF those basemap drawings into the template, setup my views per layout, then export the layouts to individual drawings.

There are some things I need to work on for this setup to include the layer states per layout. The way we name our basemap drawings, of course, means the xref names are different per project. If you rename your existing basemap and design basemap, in your setup template drawing, to a common name, then you might be able to create some layer states that could work from project to project. (I've posted on this before somewhere around here, but can't find it at the moment.)

I think I've rambled on a bit and have lost my track, but it is doable and will simplify your projects whether you have one drafter on a project or five drafters (or even more).

Good luck.

[markj.193961]

I have been having a discussion with a couple of my drafters concerning a drafting standard. Here is the point...which is the correct way to annotate and dimension: model space or paper space?

[jaberwok]

Neither is incorrect -it's your choice.
Modelspace dimensioning seems to be most popular in aec work.

[markj.193961]

We are mainly civil in our office. I guess I was hoping there was a hard and fast rule that I haven't found concerning if there are items that should/shouldn't be labelled or dimensioned in paper/model space. Does anyone out there have any preferences and reasoning for their preferences?

[CADDmanVA]

Like John said above, it's primarily the firm's preference. Firms heavy in 3D work [typically] annotate in Paperspace since they are annotating a 2D projection of an object. Firms which primarily do planimetric work (i.e. me) still annotate in Modelspace. Some reasons are:

Annotations come along for the ride when the drawings is referenced by another drawing
My annotations tend to appear in multiple viewports
Mark ups are much simpler when you can update annotations as you manipulate the geometry
I've been doing it that way for 10 years now :mrgreen:. Weak, I know. But it is obligatory here.

[Misteracad]

IMHO, the advent of annotative dims no longer leaves good reason to place dims in Paper Space. It's the best thing since sliced bread :lol:

[markj.193961]

WOW! Thanks for the help on the question even though I am now firmly in the minority. My theory on this (maybe because I'm old an out of touch) is that anything that actually appears in the field should be on the drawing. Any notes, dimensions or comments about what is actually on the ground should be on paper and not on the model.

Thanks for the help, my drafters are now saying 'I told you so'.

[RobertB]

Something to consider is how you plan on issuing revisions. If you are going to use added layouts (for letter-size addenda) or XRef the modified file to a revision drawing, in both cases all your work will need to be in modelspace. You cannot "nest" a layout with annotations into another layout that makes up the revision plot.

[markj.193961]

Good point Robert. That is the same point that was made by my drafters.

From what I am hearing, there are very few times when any dimensions or notation should be placed in paper space. What would some examples of putting text on paper space as a general rule?

[RobertB]

Our rule is that only the titleblock and its supporting text, and our plot stamp are directly in the layout. Everything else in the drawing must belong to modelspace.

Now, if we want to keep a pristine model for 3D coordination, we keep that in a separate file that we XRef into the drawing with the supporting annotation.

[cadtag]

WOW! Thanks for the help on the question even though I am now firmly in the minority. My theory on this (maybe because I'm old an out of touch) is that anything that actually appears in the field should be on the drawing. Any notes, dimensions or comments about what is actually on the ground should be on paper and not on the model.

Thanks for the help, my drafters are now saying 'I told you so'.

Well, IMHO Paperspace dimensioning and annotation is still the best way to handle everything that is not part of the actual elements being depicted on the sheet. There's 'drawing information' which belong to the sheet, and then there's the linework that depicts the elements being designed, which does belong in modelspace. There's little reason to have a dimension in model space -- I only want those to appear in one place in the set of drawings, not 2 or 22.

Especially with using Xrefs- Paperspace dimensions and annotation rule. It's much easier to deal with the xref information if it's not cluttered up with notes, dimensions, and callouts I don't need for the shhet I'm working on.

[jaberwok]

It was my impression that adesk wanted/expected us all to move to paperspace annotation - it's quite appropriate in some fields (like mech eng) but less appropriate in aec - simply because of the amount of annotation that is often involved. I believe annotative objects are a step backward (in adesk's eyes) and an acceptance that many people/companies will not move to paperspace annotation.

2 cents

[cadtag]

... annotative objects are a step backward (in adesk's eyes) and an acceptance that many people/companies will not move to paperspace annotation.

2 cents

A pity the C3D dev couldn't figure out how to make associative labels that would work in paperspace through a viewport.... I think that's part of the reason for this particular backward step.

Annotative symbol blocks and hatches are a neat idea - although I would prefer that linetypes and annotative hatches/blocks worked in a similar fashion, with one or two controlling setvars.

Notes and most especially dimensions however, rarely need to show up in multiple places. I've always considered that poor drafting practice. Paperspace and thoughtful organization are (IMHO) a much better solution that modelspace notes.

[cadpro78]

Oh what a topic to discuss over and over again... To use paperspace annotations or not? That is the question?

I think Autodesk was simple trying to make the software easier to use in general. Like others have mentioned, AEC users probably are well favored to putting a lot of their text, notes, symbols, etc. in MS. Although putting annotation like charts, schedules, and titleblocks directly in PS. I would definitely be one of these types of CAD users and if someone told me I had to switch to PS all the time for everything I would probably walk out on them. Well not really...but you get the point.

[markj.193961]

It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion between practices. While Architectural firms tend to place dimensions/text/annotation in model space, others may place that information in paper space. Would I be safe in assuming that more Civil work is dimensioned and annotated in paper space as a general rule?

[Harold Pei Jr]

It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion between practices. While Architectural firms tend to place dimensions/text/annotation in model space, others may place that information in paper space. Would I be safe in assuming that more Civil work is dimensioned and annotated in paper space as a general rule?

As John mentions above, people in the AEC fields tend to put their annotations in MS. That would include civil work as well.
As far as I've seen, that holds true here as well.

[CADDmanVA]

It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion between practices. While Architectural firms tend to place dimensions/text/annotation in model space, others may place that information in paper space. Would I be safe in assuming that more Civil work is dimensioned and annotated in paper space as a general rule?

In my experience, never. I have worked in civil firms before, and I do a lot of civil design at my current firm. I have always annotated in Modelspace, the main reason is always external referencing of the files. Just for fun though, I did do a project using the Paperspace principal. It was nice until the boss man said "change the scale". It took me hours to redo all my annotations. That was the last of that for me!

[guitarchitect7]

Wow, good to see this thread still being used for something.

I've always done dimensioning in model space specifically for the referencing part. At times we tend to even draw everything in one drawing and then freezing the desired layers in the viewport to get the desired view. This can allow to only have to draw something once and replicate it as many times as needed. If dimensioning in Paper Space, you would have to copy or redimension every time. Having in within Model Space you only create it once and see it everywhere!

[cadpro78]

Wow, good to see this thread still being used for something.

I've always done dimensioning in model space specifically for the referencing part. At times we tend to even draw everything in one drawing and then freezing the desired layers in the viewport to get the desired view. This can allow to only have to draw something once and replicate it as many times as needed. If dimensioning in Paper Space, you would have to copy or redimension every time. Having in within Model Space you only create it once and see it everywhere!


I concur with your response. I only put things in PS like images, schedules, and general notes and maybe sometimes small NTS dwgs.

[guitarchitect7]

I concur with your response. I only put things in PS like images, schedules, and general notes and maybe sometimes small NTS dwgs.

I would tend to even put schedules into their own drawing and xref them into a sheet. But that doesn't mean your way is wrong. Something to consider maybe for some of those smaller projects that only have a schedule or two with one or two items in it.

[cadpro78]

I would tend to even put schedules into their own drawing and xref them into a sheet. But that doesn't mean your way is wrong. Something to consider maybe for some of those smaller projects that only have a schedule or two with one or two items in it.


Thats not a bad idea really especially if you have a ton of other cad drafters working on the same project and need to have multiple files open at once.

[guitarchitect7]

Since our company is a design build, I tend to need schedules to send off for quotes as well. Its a lot easier to just open a drawing and window around the sechdule I need than to have to open a sheet with its default plotting setups.