Reviteer Standard

[stuntmonkee]

I know my preference, but I'm curious to hear some thoughts and opinions on how everyone draws their walls.

Do you draw to the nearest 256th of an inch and show every material or do you draw just the stud at a even 1" dimension and detail on the rest. Or maybe somewhere in between?

How do you deal with the problems involved with your method, and what are your work arounds?

What are the benefits to your way?

What are the negatives of the other ways that keep you from using that method?

This is just a convo that we are having here at the new office, and I'm finding that the answer to the correct way is about as easy to argue about as the chicken and the egg.

[aaronrumple]

Draw to the nearest 256th of an inch and show every material...

[sfaust]

The same except we draw masonry at actual inch dimensions. I would prefer that we didn't even though it makes it easier to course, but I got outvoted...

[dg]

We work to the nearest millimetre over here :-)

[JTF]

As shown in the image I use 256 as the rounding off but have my walls set up so that the stud size is a nominal 6" and 4" when dimensioned. The 256 insures that I keep my dimensioning to whole even numbers but at the same time the wall sizes remain an even 11" and 9" as I do mostly residential house plan.

The components except for the brick is sized as should be.

[christopher.zoog51272]

The same except we draw masonry at actual inch dimensions. I would prefer that we didn't even though it makes it easier to course, but I got outvoted...
We do the same thing, but the only masonary we change to nominal is CMU (8", 12", etc), not my choice either.

We do this so we can dimension the outside and inside of block without getting 1/8's of an inch invloved. We also design everything to 256th accuracy, (we never round dimensions), but we always try to stay with block dimensions or whole inches if possible.

[beegee]

We use 140 mm for nominal 150 block and 190mm for nominal 200 block ( ie actual dimensions used inlieu of round offs. )

In a large building, that repeated +10mm can quickly add up to something significant if you use nominal dimensions.

[narlee]

As per Aaron - "Draw to the nearest 256th of an inch and show every material..."

[PeterJ]

Work to correct mm figures and tend to model each material though in a timber or metal stud partition with two layers of plasterboard and a skim finish I would just show a 25 or 28 mm material and then only refine that with drafting lines to show board build up in 1:50 details.

[DoTheBIM]

As shown in the image I use 256 as the rounding off but have my walls set up so that the stud size is a nominal 6" and 4" when dimensioned. The 256 insures that I keep my dimensioning to whole even numbers but at the same time the wall sizes remain an even 11" and 9" as I do mostly residential house plan.

The components except for the brick is sized as should be.

May I ask why architects do this? We get drawings all the time with dimensions that don't add up. And then when the customer sees our drawings with their room sizes shrinking or growing becuase their architects plans that were sent to us had interior walls drawn at 4" instead of 3 1/2" without drywall or 4 1/2" w/ drywall. I just don't see the logic in creating a plan and placing dimensions on it when the don't work in real life. Can someone enlighten me? Why not size 'everything' as it should be? It's gotta be something simple but I can't figure it out...

[JTF]

JTM, in my case I dimension from the stud to stud. And as noted the stud dimension is sized as 4" or 6", so in my case the room sizes will tend to get bigger not smaller.

The main reason I dimension this way is that in the past when I dimensioned with the studs sized at 3 1/2" and 5 1/2" I would get a lot of complaints from the trades.
You see I do a lot of house plans for mid-sized home builders, and up here in Canada we still have a lot of trades from the old country and that is the custom still around this area.

And also as you mentioned the Architects that I produce drawings for request this, as I am not an Architect but a Architectural Technologist & Construction Engineer.

Just to clarify my reason Thanks

[stuntmonkee]

I tend to used a similar method as JTF, but understand the argument of JTMartin.

I guess I haven't set on a method yet due to the way things have always been done, and the way things are still done.

With AutoCAD we never had odd ball dimensions, everything was to the nearest inch. With hand drafting, it was to the nearest inch, and I don't know how many times I have heard this. . . . .

"Don't show to the nearest 1/8" because it won't be built that way in the field"

So this is where at this info. . . .that all makes absolute sense. . .gets to be a mess. As soon as you take all of it, and try to combine it.

At what scale or detail does the person in the field make an effort build? I know for sure that it wont be at 256. . .and personally I don't even see it at 1/4"s. I know that all of the 16's, and 32's, and 64's add up, but at a certain level isn't it our job to make sure that the areas that need to be 5' clear are 5' clear after the gyp and finish is on the wall? The guy framing the house cares about the face of studs and block. . and 95% of the time, that is what we are dimensioning to. After that, I really doubt that the guy hangin sheet rock is goin to check to make sure that the clear dimensions are met.

I know its nice to have all the detail in the drawings, but at what point is that all lost? Unless you have pretty fine line weights, sheetrock is lost at 1/8" when you plot.

I agree that all the numbers should add up, and that clearances should be met. I just don't know if I can justify going to the 256th unless its for error checking.

Here's a question. . . .what standard do you all use for dimension line locations on interior walls. On exterior its pretty easy, but what about interior. . .always top and right, top and left. . . .because if you can't maintain that, then you will end up with 1/8" dims all over the place.

I have a habit. . .might be good or bad, but I hate messy dims. . .everything should be clean, and organized, and add up. If its up to me, I don't like to even see 1" dims. . .I think the closer to modular dimensions the better.

Anyway, these are all questions that I have been pondering for quite a while. And I know that it seems like a lopsided argument for using whole dimensions, but thats because most of you already use the fractioned method, so theres no need for me to go there.

[DoTheBIM]

JTF:
Thanks for clarification. I guess I need to ask an architect that practices this.

stuntmonkee:
16ths are close enough as long as they add up to the overalls with respect to wall width. We are a panelizer and don't show sheetrock as we don't provide it for one and i'm not sure we'd gain anything by showing it... besides visibility on the screen. We set cabinets 1/2" from wall and design our countertops to that.

standard interior dimensions??? This might be the clue I need for my answer... but we don't have any standard for that or much else for that matter. Since we design all interior walls to 3 1/2" and 5 1/2" and exteriores to 4" and 6" (includes wall sheathing) we don't have to worry about where we place dimensions and can place them where ever we need.

Or maybe the answer lies in your comment about hand drafting and AutoCAD. Which I can see if hand drafting. I wouldn't want to label dims to any fractions either. But CAD eliminates that headache... So my answer seems to be the old school board experience shows through to CAD, simply becuase that's 'always how it's been done before'. Common argurment for a lot of things, but completely off base IMO.

to anyone else that cares:
It's nice to make pretty Drawings with nice dimension rounded to nearest inch or whatever, but when the drawings come down the line and things like code required clearances don't work out... then the name calling begins. You know the old saying?... s#%t flows downhill... At some point the septic tank gets full and overflows with a variety of choice words. If inaccuracies start when a house if first drawn. It's only likely that something won't get built the way the architect had intended, becuase it don't work in real life or wasn't clear how it was intended to work.

Not trying to just single any one person or select architects, Just voicing an opinion from a different point of view. I ain't saying to change your ways but to intentionally draw something untrue in CAD is kind of contradicting to drawing in CAD in the first place from the way I look at it anyway. (Standard disclaimer here... This is only an opinion, please don't take it personally)

[stuntmonkee]

JTF:
Thanks for clarification. I guess I need to ask an architect that practices this.

stuntmonkee:
16ths are close enough as long as they add up to the overalls with respect to wall width. We are a panelizer and don't show sheetrock as we don't provide it for one and i'm not sure we'd gain anything by showing it... besides visibility on the screen. We set cabinets 1/2" from wall and design our countertops to that.

standard interior dimensions??? This might be the clue I need for my answer... but we don't have any standard for that or much else for that matter. Since we design all interior walls to 3 1/2" and 5 1/2" and exteriores to 4" and 6" (includes wall sheathing) we don't have to worry about where we place dimensions and can place them where ever we need.

Or maybe the answer lies in your comment about hand drafting and AutoCAD. Which I can see if hand drafting. I wouldn't want to label dims to any fractions either. But CAD eliminates that headache... So my answer seems to be the old school board experience shows through to CAD, simply becuase that's 'always how it's been done before'. Common argurment for a lot of things, but completely off base IMO.

to anyone else that cares:
It's nice to make pretty Drawings with nice dimension rounded to nearest inch or whatever, but when the drawings come down the line and things like code required clearances don't work out... then the name calling begins. You know the old saying?... s#%t flows downhill... At some point the septic tank gets full and overflows with a variety of choice words. If inaccuracies start when a house if first drawn. It's only likely that something won't get built the way the architect had intended, becuase it don't work in real life or wasn't clear how it was intended to work.

Not trying to just single any one person or select architects, Just voicing an opinion from a different point of view. I ain't saying to change your ways but to intentionally draw something untrue in CAD is kind of contradicting to drawing in CAD in the first place from the way I look at it anyway. (Standard disclaimer here... This is only an opinion, please don't take it personally)

I don't think there is anything I disagree with you there. And I don't agree with using the line "thats the way it's always been done", either. (That's why we are on Revit to begin with right?) I think the use of a CADD system is great for the fact that it is accurate. BUT! I think it can be abused. C.A.D.D. - Computer Aided Drafting & Design. Too many times we use it to draw **** we don't need. In my opinion the use of a CADD system is beneficial because it allows us to make changes quickly and not have to start a new sheet, or erase work, or overlay Mylar. I think CADD systems are helpful so that you can check to make sure your dims add up, and things fit. And just recently I think its beneficial for spell check, and coordination.

I have always been told that the computer should always be used as a fancy pencil. . . . .hmmm

I'm just now implementing Revit into our office. One of the users is starting to get a decent grasp on thing, but is starting to complain about this and that. And it made me think. Revit is a great tool, but you still have to do your job, and you still have to think. You still have drafting to do, it won't do your job for you.

I still think that everything need to be drawn correctly, and accurate to the nearest 1millionth of an inch, but that doesn't mean that we need to draw everything that is bigger than 256th of an inch. Details are called details because they show detail. . . . .

damn, late day dead line. . . .more later

[DoTheBIM]

I believe I agree whole heartedly with all your comments too.... Now... How do we get the word out.
Can you give and example of things that are drawn that don't need to be.... I'm not sure that I've run into that yet. Now if there were no codes it'd be a different story. I'm under the impression that even though we do these exact things... With Revit there is only a need to do it once as you can draw in as much detail as you want in the model then control what you want too see on the drawings with different display settings. Then in overall views you can see basic stuff and in details and cross sections you can see as much or as little detail as you put into the initial model and families. Plus it makes some else's job much easier to see exactly what a designer or architect was thinking or not thinking of.

As for your user w/ respect to revit... I bet he just hasn't had enough time or resources to do what he needs. I'd be real interested in hearing what he's having problems with in particular... as the firm I work for is researching Revit ourselves. And knowing problems people are having would be real helpful. Has he or you posted the issues you've been having to see if there is already a solution or if it needs to be added to the wishlist?

[dalewww]

I used to be a rough framer for wood framed structures. When we saw dimensions on a drawing that would show an interior wall at 4" or 6" or some other round dim, the comment on the site would not be a pleasant on in regards to the architect. It is nothing more than old school way of doing things. There was no way you could measure with a scale anything less than a 1/2" when scaling a plan while using pencils.

It really all comes down to communicating your intent. When the drawings go to CD, the communication needs to be good between the design intent and the builder. Therefore, the dimensions should be done for the builder. Then the communication needs to be relayed to the client so they know what is going on (room shrinkage or enlargement).

The other thing is what I have heard on this forum since I started on Revit. "Draw it like you build it." This makes the most sense. Why create a wall that is not true to size? Is dims that look good a good enough reason. Why not make the wall move to the right location to make the dim work to the right dim. That is the way it is built.

Unfortunately, I have not been fortunate enough to convince the old school people of getting away from 4, 6, 8 9, 11 inch walls on plan. Until now. I am setting up our Revit in our office and everything is going to be like it is built.

Just my two cents.

[JTF]

If anyone thinks for a minute that it is worth drawing to a truly accurate scale other then detailing is wasting time. Like I said I have done both but after setting my walls to reflect the dimensions of whole inches I have saved myself hours of checking and double checking and saved my sanity.
Mind you with AutoCAD out of my life and Revit to the rescue, I toyed with going back to fractions as I love the fact you can not override the dimensions but soon converted back to whole numbers.

I have also been out in the field (labouring) in conjunction with in offices (drafting) and no one can tell me that they have ever seen a foundation perfectly square or true to dimensions after it has been poured, saying that no matter what you have drawn on paper or the computer all is lost, so in closing I know I will sleep well tonight knowing that all my dimensions look nice and positively even.

Just my thoughts.

[Steve_Stafford]

<Evil Steve Mode on>

Dimensions should go to Face of Finish or Face of Structure?

<Evil Steve Mode off>

[JTF]

<Evil Steve Mode on>

Dimensions should go to Face of Finish or Face of Structure?

<Evil Steve Mode off>
Always to structure.

[BillyGrey]

First, I am not refering to anyone in this thread, but designers and architects I have worked with, or from their plans. Whatever works correctly for anyone, fine, as long as it works correctly.

For residential, I always draw my walls cores at true width, and dimension to that.
My associates appreciate the method once I tell them that there are no built-in mistakes,
but there "might" be the odd half-inch dim. here or there...
Trusses engineered from my plans always fit over my load bearing members.
I design everything dimensionally, like it builds in the real world.

I've seen so many conc. slabs fall an inch or more beneath or outside the
perimeter (truss) plate line. Thats usually just the tip of the iceberg.
It confounds me why anyone would design this way.
My mentor always designed nominally, and he also
used the over-ride dim feature in Autocad. Scary.

I don't care much for traditions or convention that embraces methods that almost
insure mistakes happen. I also don't care if a framers gets disjointed
because on the surface they perceive a 1/2" increment in a dim chain as sloppy design, when in reality, the opposite is true.

As far as snap plate and layout in 4-6 inch increments, I marvel at designers who can really pull this off. However, most of the custom homes I design blow this notion up in a hurry.

For me, it all really boils down to precision, not to mention insulating the designer from liability.

[Rhythmick]

I agree that 1/16" is as accurate of framing as your going to get in the field.
It makes no sense to me to run dims any other way than how it will layout in the field, and that definately applies to elevations also, 8' walls = 8'-1 1/8", TJI = 11-7/8", etc. Correct elevations are critical for stair detailing, spot elevations for structural, header placement etc.
I make sure all my framers know to build to the CD's and not the foundation. Changing truss dims to fit an inaccurate foundation seems to be a common problem, I once had a truss company state they had to measure the framing before they would build the pack, I told them we build to the plans but they insisted, Well that's great only the truss guy doing the field measuring messed up!
Building to an accurate set of CD's is the only way in my book. And if there are issues, whoever did not comply with the CD's is at fault. And if I mess up the CD's in the design stage to begin with, (never happens ;)), then I'm at fault.

As far as modelling revit with all wall materials through completion, I am still struggling with the difficulty involved in running dims to the wall cores without flinching the mouse enough it grabs a finish instead. I am anxious for the day when we will be able to work with core only views when running dims, or the dim wall core preference could be wall core "only". It's definately one of my peeves with Revit! Perhaps I'm missing something along these lines and it's possible now to turn off the finish wall layers. I've searched the forums for a solution on this but have not found the answer.

My 2 cents,

[JTF]

As a builder first and a designer second I can see all the hype coming out about everything must be as per the CD's. It is obvious that once again these people have not built with their hands but with only pencils or mice.

As for myself as stated I have done both and continue to date. The problem exists
if a trade is to follow another trade and does not field measure but instead confides in the CD's as gospel watch out. As far as I know a famous note plastered on all CD's is field check or measure. Why; it is only obvious that CD's cannot be taken as dimensioned. So whats the deal about dimensioning either way, as far as I know I still have an easier time with whole numbers then fractions and it still gets built the same and less complaints from the trades.

""Quote" I once had a truss company state they had to measure the framing before they would build the pack, " Quote"" I don't know of any truss company that would not measure the framed deck before final design of a truss.

""Quote" I've seen so many conc. slabs fall an inch or more beneath or outside the
perimeter (truss) plate line. Thats usually just the tip of the iceberg.
It confounds me why anyone would design this way." Quote"" This is a common problem but not the fault of a designer but the conditions on site.

No matter if you dimension to studs as fractions or whole numbers the foundation drawings rule. Meaning that if the foundation is dimensioned out to out at 50'-0" that is out to out no matter if the frame above is dimensioned 50'-1 1/2".

And by the way 1/2" on site either way you look at it is perfect as far as construction goes.

Been there done that.

Just letting you how it is in real world connections of components unless you are talking about NASA and things of that nature.

[sultarc]

I ran into problems years ago with dimensioning nominal stud widths. 4" or 6" on plans. It got me into trouble a cople of times because of creep over large distances. The last space always lost length. Formerly many architects used to dimension to centerlines. I always found this to be awkward because who can locate a stud properly on a centerline? So I came up with a way to solve the problem of creep. You just dimension to one face of a stud and to each corresponding face of each subsequent stud. If I need 5'-0" clear for hallways. etc. I dimension face to face at 5'-5" to allow or finish on either side. It seems to work like a charm. I never have problems with creep anymore or questions from framers.

[muttlieb]

No matter if you dimension to studs as fractions or whole numbers the foundation drawings rule. Meaning that if the foundation is dimensioned out to out at 50'-0" that is out to out no matter if the frame above is dimensioned 50'-1 1/2".


If the concrete sub is off 1-1/2", I'd be looking for someone else to do my foundations...

No offense, but around here, if I drew and dimensioned my walls as 4" and 6", I'd be laughed at by the trades for not knowing that studs are really 3-1/2" and 5-1/2". Assuming there will be inaccuracies on the job site is no reason to introduce inaccuracies into my CD's. BTW, I work for a design/build firm and I am directly involved in the construction of my designs.

[JTF]

I would 100% of the time wager money on the fact that the finshed constructed product is not the same as the issued CD's or why does every design firm issue as built CD's???

In reality the issue at hand is in the method of construction!

Who is to know that any given trade will abide by the same rules if that exists.

A mason might over hang a brick 1/8" or another 1/2".

What about brick size, this can also affect the combined finished width of an exterior wall.

What about stud widths, it is possilbe that one may be 5 1/2" and another 5 1/8" maybe
even 5 5/8".

This all affects the finished product.

What if the air space is 1" maybe 1 1/4".

So where does it begin or where does it finish.

It is all interpretation that is all it is, it is not writen in stone, we are not Moses and if anyone knows the meaning of Architecture it is not pretty drawings and dimensions but it is the "Science of Building".

So leave it to the builders.

[muttlieb]

I would 100% of the time wager money on the fact that the finshed constructed product is not the same as the issued CD's or why does every design firm issue as built CD's???

Because for a variety of reasons, mistakes still happen (both on the part of the architect and builder). But with Revit, and even 2D CAD for that matter (heck, even hand drafting), there is no reason to start out with innacurate CD's.

The additional points you made are certainly valid. Perhaps I have a unique perpective as I work for a design/build firm and know very well the idiosyncracies of my subs. Therefore I am able to document and detail my designs very closely to how they will be built. But still, you gotta draw a 2x4 as 3-1/2" :wink:

[JTF]

All this for a half an inch. God help me if my wife thought the same way.:wink:

[JTF]

I can already hear the replies,, speak for yourself.

[muttlieb]

All this for a half an inch. God help me if my wife thought the same way.:wink:

LOL. No comment...

[DoTheBIM]

Always to structure.Even though the structure is not drawn accurately in the first place and doesn't work in real life??:? I'd rather recieve a drawing on a paper napkin with no dims than be put through the frustration of assuming something actually works but really doesn't only to have myself redraw it so it does work.


Whatever works correctly for anyone, fine, as long as it works correctly.. should add " as long as it works correctly for everyone that is using the drawing to produce something."


For me, it all really boils down to precision, not to mention insulating the designer from liability..ah good call... the liability bug is really going around these days and is getting worse.

JTF:
Please don't take this as a personal attack. I see your point of view, but I see more points of views leaning to fractional accurate dimensions. You will continue to do whatever your comfortable with no matter who says what. We're not here to try to change your (or anyone else's) way. I'm simply trying to understand why this is the case. Your argument is "working with whole numbers is easier"... No argument from anyone there... Metric has always been a better system, but with computers working with fractions is practically a non issure becuase it does it for you for the most part.

By the way, we are a design build firm... we design the whole house from foundation to roof and supply the whole house in wall panels and trusses and joists and even precut rafters. We don't have the liberty or time to go to the site and measure what the actual framing is before building trusses. If something isn't right in the foundation, the problem esponentially creates problems. It HAS to be corrected in the floor deck before we arrive on site. Any framer working on my site or our company president's sites that thought 1/2" was perfect would get fired on the spot and never be used again.

With respect to your comment about only detailing needing to be scaled accurately, I don't get this logic when you say it won't be built that way anyway. Why bother putting dimensions on at all but basic overall stuff... Let the field guys figure out the details. If a sub doesn't follow your plans and details "IN CONJUCTION WITH WHAT'S IN THE FIELD" then the liability falls on the subs IMO.

We have a repeating problem that subs and builders try to mix an outside firm's rounded dimension drawings with our accurately created panels drawing and can't get things to work out and then it is automatically the dumb designer's fault that doesn't have a 4+ year degree. Sorry, have had a few bad experiences.

[JTF]

JTM no offense taken but we can't seriously believe that concrete and wood construction can come anywhere close to machining metal.

I'm sure that someone somewhere in your company or the trades working for you or with you have sweep a 1/2" under a sill plate here or there.

Lets be serious about this its construction, not that I'm saying lets all just fudge this and that but
not even the aliens that built the Pyramids could get it perfect.

As far as starting out accurate or inaccurate well its how you can envision the finished product and piece together the components you have to work with.

You can't expect me to believe that any pre-built package is without fault even if produced from drawings with min. 1/16" tolerances.

[Rhythmick]

As a builder first and a designer second I can see all the hype coming out about everything must be as per the CD's. It is obvious that once again these people have not built with their hands but with only pencils or mice.Sorry JTF, this statement is as accurate as a 4" 2x4 ;)!

I started humping lumber in the early 70’s and am very well versed in physical onsite construction, conventional, log, timber, earth shelter, ICF & SIP. My prefered method is with accurate CD’s. I really don’t believe my method of doing things to be superior to others, but it is the way I choose to do things. I realized quite some time ago, when I’m no longer around, people will still somehow figure out how to build a house!!!






""Quote" I once had a truss company state they had to measure the framing before they would build the pack, " Quote"" I don't know of any truss company that would not measure the framed deck before final design of a truss.My trusses are now all done through exchanging cad info by e-mail with the manufacturers, it could not be easier or more accurate. I always check the truss layout and profiles before processing the order, and typically catch an item or two that needs tweeking. The truss designers are very appreciative of my efforts that accurate cad ability has enabled me to do. That also goes for other trades as well, accuracy eliminates not all, but a lot of head scratching, field fudging, tearout and redo's, and again that’s just a preference – not the law.

[tim.olson661742]

From the 'ol AutoCAD days...leave snap ON ! ! ! If your model is accurate, the dimensioning is easy and leads to clean, clear CDs.

I don't hesitate to dimension to 1/16th if the geometry requires it, especially for things like non-rectilinear construction, foundation diagonals/triangulation (framers/foundation subs should be damned happy I'm making their jobs easier), site dims to establish building setback lines, etc. However, typically there is no need to go finer than 1/4" for plans and 1/8" on vertical dims (thanks to the 11 7/8" I-joists and standard 88 5/8 and 92 5/8" studs).

Kinda funny, however, with all this talk of 1/256th of an inch, that Revit thinks a 2x8 is 7 1/2", and it doesn't accurately place the bottom edge of a "trussed" roof correctly on a wall plate and...

minor quibbles for a fantastic program.

Tim

[Martin P]

We dimension to nearest 1mm - and draw to 0.5mm (plasterboard is 12.5mm etc) and we draw studs and everything else exactly to size - many Architects round studs up ie 147mm stud becomes 150mm etc. We dont do this because of cumulative errors in dimensions and more so that we have a particular client (a joiner turned developers "building manager") who just loves to sit and pick holes in you dimensioning, making himself appear real clever and making a fool of you - even for the sake of 3mm he would have you run off another set of drawings - it used to make my blood boil - I have several choice phrases to describe the guy!! - so I started giving him drawings to 0.5mm accuracy basically to shut him up and to tell the men on site who laughed at the accuracy of the dimensions to speak to their boss about it!! Unfortunately it has just become habit and I dimension all drawings that accurately. Though to my mind it is better to be painfully accurate than to not be - that way even if you make a small error it has more chance of being a small problem!!!

[JTF]

Good Morning Everyone.

NOTE: DO NOT SCALE THESE CONVERSATIONS AS THERE ARE ONLY FOR REFERENCE.

[DoTheBIM]

JTM no offense taken but we can't seriously believe that concrete and wood construction can come anywhere close to machining metal.

I'm sure that someone somewhere in your company or the trades working for you or with you have sweep a 1/2" under a sill plate here or there..No argument there on both accounts... BUT It surely wasn't because our plans were out of wack that far... It's most likely due to something on site that is out of wack and wasn't caught until it became a problem... so they shave a wall 1/2" and call it good. Which is fine... I really don't want to know about every little thing that they adjusted in the field.



You can't expect me to believe that any pre-built package is without fault even if produced from drawings with min. 1/16" tolerances. :wink: Of course I expect you to believe that.... No really, I wasn't trying to imply that. But if we put nearest 1" dims on our plans. We'd have so many problems, that we'd never get off the phone to get more plans done due to people calling to complain about how poorly the house fit together or why their dims on their plans didn't work out. I shudder at the thought....

By the way thanks for going to the trouble to post your point of view. It helps me understand the mindset behind the (what I call weird) dimensioning practices on the plans that we see.

Good luck with all you do. Best wishes.

[ppelegrin]

C'mon people,

Lets get that one last country over to Metric.

*Gets the whip out* Move it people, move it.

Regards,
P Pelegrin

[Rhythmick]

C'mon people,

Lets get that one last country over to Metric.

*Gets the whip out* Move it people, move it.

Regards,
P Pelegrin
That would make way too much mathimatical sense for us and
we've had extensive training in imperial.
Kind of like converting ADT users to Revit.

[BillyGrey]

It is obvious that once again these people have not built with their hands but with only pencils or mice.

Interesting leap in logic.

I have over twenty years experience in the trades. As a framer first (yes, a framer in residential/commercial, including panelized roof structures way up in the air) then (among other forays) as a production super for large res. builders, then as a company wide project manager for a successful custom home builder in a major resort community. Now I draw all day because I choose to, as I am uniquely qualified in my area of expertise.

Hopefully, I stated my earlier premise clearly without pigeon-holing anyone personally in this thread.

[stuntmonkee]

WOW. . .looks like it's X-Mas today with all the posts I see under this tree!

Sorry for bailin on you guys yesterday, had a site visit, and it was on my side of town, so I called it a day.

First off I want to thank everyone for participating in a great thread. This it the first one that I have seen, but its a underlying issue clearly.

Next, I I think we just need to get the lumber companies to start building all of their studs true to their titles. . . .oh, and no more Parking on driveways, and driving on parkways. . . .our recent ancestors were funny ****** weren't they.

After that, maybe this makes it to the wish list. I supposed I wouldn't have quite the same issue if Revit would eliminate the finish detail when viewed as course as opposed to eliminating the core lines. I know that dims default to core boundaries, but I would still rather see detail removed from the core out.

Anyway. I'm still up in the air about either way. I guess my main conflict is that if your goin to show studs as accurate, then why not CMU? And I can see 1/2 inch working, but 1/8 or 16th seems so very fine. . . . .

Some of the comments about design build. . . .Thats a great situation. You know who your communicating to. I like the idea behind design build, the only problem that I have seen is that designers never seem to stop designing their fees away since they can design through the whole process.

well, I'm goin to go ponder this a bit more.

Thanks
Stunts

[stuntmonkee]

Interesting leap in logic.

I have over twenty years experience in the trades. As a framer first (yes, a framer in residential/commercial, including panelized roof structures way up in the air) then (among other forays) as a production super for large res. builders, then as a company wide project manager for a successful custom home builder in a major resort community. Now I draw all day because I choose to, as I am uniquely qualified in my area of expertise.

Hopefully, I stated my earlier premise clearly without pigeon-holing anyone personally in this thread.

Actually he was somewhat referring to ME. . .with out knowing it I'm guessing. I haven't spent nearly enough time in the field as I would have liked to. But its still early, and the winds are changing.

It's one of the things I wish that I could implement into my knowledge base, but it just didn't work out that way. But I'm working on it.

[muttlieb]

I like the idea behind design build, the only problem that I have seen is that designers never seem to stop designing their fees away since they can design through the whole process.

I suppose that is a danger with design/build, but unless you've got a client with an unlimited budget, it's a very bad idea. I insist on finalized CD's and job specs before construction begins. For me, design/build means design then build, not design as you build.

[stuntmonkee]

For me, design/build means design then build, not design as you build.

Can we get that placed in the Archtectural Graphic Standards. . .or the IBC or something

[DoTheBIM]

I suppose that is a danger with design/build, but unless you've got a client with an unlimited budget, it's a very bad idea. I insist on finalized CD's and job specs before construction begins. For me, design/build means design then build, not design as you build.
Funny you mention that.... I guess I'm not the only one with that problem. Currently we are constructing a new office building for ourselves and it is a design as you build in some part. Gets very frustrating for myself and the subs when I have to change drawings no less than everyday and give them new drawings.

[k.armstrong]

JTM, in my case I dimension from the stud to stud. And as noted the stud dimension is sized as 4" or 6", so in my case the room sizes will tend to get bigger not smaller.

The main reason I dimension this way is that in the past when I dimensioned with the studs sized at 3 1/2" and 5 1/2" I would get a lot of complaints from the trades.
You see I do a lot of house plans for mid-sized home builders, and up here in Canada we still have a lot of trades from the old country and that is the custom still around this area.

And also as you mentioned the Architects that I produce drawings for request this, as I am not an Architect but a Architectural Technologist & Construction Engineer.

Just to clarify my reason Thanks

If there are issues regarding stud sizes - perhaps dimensioning to centreline would be more effective

Think how the builder wants to set it out when hes building it
Ken

[DoTheBIM]

If there are issues regarding stud sizes - perhaps dimensioning to centreline would be more effective

Think how the builder wants to set it out when hes building it
Ken
Have you ever set one out...I don't know too many builders that want to do any addition and subtraction in their head to get to the edge of a wall. You can't see a line in the center of a wall on the floor when you set the wall down on it. And you can't hook a tape measure on the center of a wall. or push it against the center. These days builders don't want to have to do that extra math, Plus you gotta think down the line a little further too. It's not the builder you making these dimensions for it's the extreme abundance of minority workers building houses with practically no supervision or lack of experienced supervision that don't speak English or are very difficult to understand. No offense to any minorities, please I'm not trying to single you out. It's just that its the current problem that we are dealing with. Experienced help is hard to find and then the builders don't want to pay for it... They'd apparently rather deal with all the headaches/misunderstandings and miss deadlines due to rework and end up paying the same amount of money if they'd have just used someone reputable to begin with. Of course there's always the case of "I don't build that way so your plans are worthless" or something to that effect. But this is part of how we keep unemployment low I guess. Isn't America great.