Great looking drawings

[guitarchitect]

I have worked for a few offices, and it's hard to find a really good, cohesive, easy to read drawing set. I don't know why - lack of standards? Too many young people putting together drawing sets? I'm still fairly new to the profession (5yrs experience), but it's starting to concern me... I don't want to put together bad drawings, but it's hard to know what's good when there are so many different opinions and conventions - some people say dimension to centers of openings, some people say, dimension the RO. some say pull everything off the grid lines, others say do the structure off the GL and then the partitions + openings off the structure itself... and so on.

So can anyone share some good drawings? Or list resources where they are available (books?). I'd really like to step up my game, but it's hard to find good precedents.

[BillB_UH92]

Have you got a copy of Architectural Graphic Standards? It does not have answers to all the questions you ask about office standards, but it has good some good information starting with the appendixes in the back.

[guitarchitect]

I've got the latest one, but the appendices basically reference the NCS/UDS and I haven't got a copy of that. Too pricey! And hard to get an office to purchase when they already have their own "standards"

[renogreen]

The best way to good looking drawings is to set up office standards and insist that they be followed. To do this requires a buy-in from management/ownership and someone who is a bit anal to create the standards. Consistency from person to person goes a long way towards creating good looking drawings.

In our office combine graphic standards (appearance) with Revit and Autocad standards (methodology).

[guitarchitect]

The best way to good looking drawings is to set up office standards and insist that they be followed. To do this requires a buy-in from management/ownership and someone who is a bit anal to create the standards. Consistency from person to person goes a long way towards creating good looking drawings.

In our office combine graphic standards (appearance) with Revit and Autocad standards (methodology).

Yep, I'm aware of all that - the purpose of the thread was to have more of a show + tell. And to talk about where those standards come from - like dimensioning standards, or how to set up an easy to read tag + leader system, things like that. so if you have some stuff to show off, I'd love to see it!

[Mike Sealander]

Line weights and reduction in visual clutter go a long way to making drawings readable. Lines used for annotation should be a different weight than lines used for geometry. We try to dimension from the top and left, and have text on the bottom and right. Try to put detail bubbles in the same place (upper left, for instance) relative to the callout boundary box. Put the longest dimension lines furthest from the geometry, and shorter dimensions closer in.
More substantively, the best working drawings show a familiarity with construction. I don't think anyone does openings layouts based on the center of the opening. It's far more practical to dimension to rough openings. I've worked in offices and with a tool belt on, and a lot of times I've built from my own drawings. I always think to myself, "which dimension do I need first?"
Review working drawings by pretending you are explaining the set to the person who is going to build the building.

[jsnyder.68308]

I don't think anyone does openings layouts based on the center of the opening.

FWIW, perhaps this is regional or specific to a particular construction type, but we always dimension to the centerline of openings (unless the wall is masonry). This lets the guys in the field figure out where to put the studs to make certain the windows actually fit.

I once had a super tell me that if we tried to dimension to rough openings, he would make me come back and install all the windows myself...

[jcoe]

In the spirit of the original post, here is a sample partial set of drawings. I had to break the set up due to upload limitations.

[guitarchitect]

at first glance, those look really great... can't wait to look at them in detail!

this is something I have always wondered, how practical and intuitive is the grid system of detail numbering for other people reviewing drawings? I have never understood it very well, mainly because I've never worked in an office that used it... but it always seemed counterintuitive to number drawings 12, 33, 42 etc if there are only 10 drawings on a sheet. I guess you know "where" to look on a sheet if you know the number? IE, "45" will be in the bottom right, "11" will be in the upper left, etc?

[guitarchitect]

FWIW, perhaps this is regional or specific to a particular construction type, but we always dimension to the centerline of openings (unless the wall is masonry). This lets the guys in the field figure out where to put the studs to make certain the windows actually fit.

I once had a super tell me that if we tried to dimension to rough openings, he would make me come back and install all the windows myself...

this is exactly what spawned my post - it seems like there are good reasons for each, but there's nothing to definitively say that you should always use one or the other. out of curiosity, do you mainly work in wood frame construction? I'm wondering if one could dimension masonry openings to the outside lines, but then for stud interior walls dimension the centers so that trades can space their members accordingly.

same goes for centerlines of walls. do most of you dimension to centerlines of stud walls except when something is code-dependent (IE, an egress corridor that must be 1100 wide should clearly have a "1100" dimension inside of it, not be dimmed to the CL of the adjacent wall since a shift or change in finish material would shrink it.

[sbrown]

Nice drawings. thanks for sharing. I've been using some 3d wall section and they turn out pretty good.

[DaveP]

Very nice, Scott!
One reason we've shied away from 3D Wall sections is referencing them back to the plans. Do you cut a "Normal" Section, and then do a Orient View? And then what?
Do you fake the Detail and Sheet Number?
How do you deal with updating the numbers?

[Revitaoist]

To weigh in on the dimensioning standard, I can think of conflicting instances where you would do both, as opposed to just a graphical company standard. Suppose you have a large pop out with windows evenly laid out, I would dim to the CL's to show the intent of the design, but suppose I was doing conventional light framed residential where you want 4' shear walls on the corners, I would put a dimension to the edge of window 4'-0" to illustrate the intent of the design.

[sbrown]

Good question. Yes they are oriented to the 2d wall section. We actually didn't reference them at all. But what we could and should do in the future is create the standard 2d, place it on the sheet with its view title, then place the 3d view of that wall section next to it with no label. So you'd have 2d and 3d right next to each other sharing one View Title.

[damon.sidel]

this is something I have always wondered, how practical and intuitive is the grid system of detail numbering for other people reviewing drawings? I have never understood it very well, mainly because I've never worked in an office that used it... but it always seemed counterintuitive to number drawings 12, 33, 42 etc if there are only 10 drawings on a sheet. I guess you know "where" to look on a sheet if you know the number? IE, "45" will be in the bottom right, "11" will be in the upper left, etc?

In one office where I used to work, we used the ConDoc system. Each sheet had tick marks along the edges labeled A, B, C... along the horizontal (right to left) and 1, 2, 3... along the vertical (bottom to top). So on each sheet, the grid system told you where on the sheet to look. A reference on another sheet might read "F3/A211".

It also had a system--pretty common, but this one was explicit and consistent--for how the sheet numbering works. Letter = trade (eg - A = architectural); A000s were for up-front information like title sheet, schedules, symbol keys, etc; if I remember correctly, A100s for plans, A200s for building elevations and sections, A300s for enlarged plans, A400s for stairs, and A500s for details. You could orient yourself anywhere in the drawing set based on the numbers.

You mentioned the possibility that the low quality and consistency in your office is due to too many young people. I assume that there are project managers and principals running each project? They are responsible not just for the final set of drawings in general, but for monitoring and educating the team members. Don't blame the inexperienced staff for something they cannot be expected to know. If you are advocating for implementing true office standards, I'd suggest hiring a CAD and office standards manager or purchasing something like the ConDoc system. Don't reinvent the wheel. Even just looking at good drawings, although a good place to start, is like piecing back together a puzzle that others have already figured out and now provide instructions.

[guitarchitect]

I'm not blaming anyone - merely stating the problem. Unfortunately small offices can't really afford to hire CAD managers, and the ConDoc system is useless without reinforcement or embracing arms. Every office I have worked for abandoned the AIA Layer name system, for example - so it's hard to expect them to follow even more rigorous systems.

I'm familiar with sheet numbering systems, which have been used at every office. And some of the ideas behind some of the ConDoc stuff. Practically speaking, though, I'm not sure about its idea of keynoting drawings. Does keynoting actually work when it comes to a job site? I think it's a fantastic practice to actually link your spec to your drawings, but can imagine tradespeople pulling their hair out trying to link numbers to text on every sheet...

[damon.sidel]

Very true, many small firms cannot afford CAD managers.
And very true that any set of standards are useless without enforcement.
So given that you state you have low expectations for any office to maintain simple standards, is your quest for better drawing standards simply personal? Or do you hope that your office is different from your past experiences?

[cdatechguy]

I got a job where I was the only drafter....it was a 4 person office. My first day was spent just trying to figure out what the previous guy was doing. I asked about standards and the folks looked at me like I was talking about them. :/

So I just created my own, since everything was on one layer, at least they were using AutoCAD...and when I plotted my first sheet the engineer came over and looked at it, then yelled for the President and Sales guy and pointed to the plot... "LOOK! LINEWEIGHTS!"

It seems my predecessor told them that AutoCAD only has one lineweight. :roll:

[guitarchitect]

Very true, many small firms cannot afford CAD managers.
And very true that any set of standards are useless without enforcement.
So given that you state you have low expectations for any office to maintain simple standards, is your quest for better drawing standards simply personal? Or do you hope that your office is different from your past experiences?

it's personal so that I can raise the bar at whatever office I join ;)

[guitarchitect]

and don't get me wrong - I can put together my own good-looking drawings. I'm just seeking out some more standardized approaches to putting together sets in order to be able to assemble/think about sets more cohesively.

[jsteinhauer]

Here is a plot sheet that looks great.

Sorry for going off subject.