Anybody using Graphic Standards 11th edition?

[patricks]

That's the most useless stack of paper I think I've ever seen. I looked through this new edition for things I used to always refer to the 10th edition for. Things like baseball field layout and dimensions, gutter and downspout spacing and sizing, athletic swimming pool dimensions, etc. and it has none of that information. For gutter sizing, it actually tells me to refer to some other resource. Good thing we kept our 10th edition around. :roll:

[pauljordan]

I thought Graphics Standards went away back around ohhh, R9 of AutoCad... I haven't seen any standards for YEARS, nay, DECADES!!

[blads]

That's the most useless stack of paper I think I've ever seen. I looked through this new edition for things I used to always refer to the 10th edition for. Things like baseball field layout and dimensions, gutter and downspout spacing and sizing, athletic swimming pool dimensions, etc. and it has none of that information. For gutter sizing, it actually tells me to refer to some other resource. Good thing we kept our 10th edition around. :roll:
if you mean this piece of info... (http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/doc_bookstore.asp?TRACKID=&CID=333&DID=14088) then, no I haven't used something along those lines for a long long time...

mind you I still have a copy of neufert's architects data

[patricks]

if you mean this piece of info... (http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/doc_bookstore.asp?TRACKID=&CID=333&DID=14088) then, no I haven't used something along those lines for a long long time...

mind you I still have a copy of neufert's architects data

Yeah that's the one. My boss said the new Architect magazine even calls it useless.

I pull out the 10th edition on pretty much every project to size my gutters and downspouts, if nothing else. It's a good resource to have around.

[J. Grouchy]

SMACNA has always been a good resource for sizing gutters & downspouts.

[.chad]

we have a um.. red on here. i cant see what version it is from my desk, and im too full with lunch to wheel over there and inspect it ;) it gets regular usage here however. quite a few pages are marked for quick reference.

[CADDmanVA]

The new version is useless??!! That honestly breaks my heart! I had planned on putting it on my Christmas wish list this year. I use my copy of the red book almost daily! It's only the abridged student version, but it's still good. Now, the CD version has sucked as long as I can remember...

[tc3dcad60731]

Wow you make me feel like an idiot! I went to buy 10th edition and everyone wanted $250 or more US so I went to the publishers website to see what was in it. There I discovered 11th edition for a great pre-order price. Having never used the 10th edition I feel that I have obtained some pretty useful information. Granted I have never found a book that answered everything I needed it to but then.....

[CGM]

Hi all,
I have moved this thread from CWC, as Sammie & I feel it may be better served over in this forum. :?: Hope that's fine with you guys.

While on the subject I'm more of a Neufert's type myself, - version 2000 (http://www.bookhub.co.uk/Architects_Data_jhnza_0632057718.html). ;)

[TerribleTim]

Hmmm. . .We have the red one (10th edition) here in our office. The architect I work with swears it's the ONLY real source of information in the world. He says that the problem with CAD is that it has corrupted the "art" of drafting. http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/crazy2.gif

[drafting.33933]

I am glad someone has mentioned this. I had to find the slope to a truck dock and could not find it in the new 11th edition. I still have the 8th edition and I found the information almost immediately. I thought that maybe it was me. Thanks, I will cancel my appointment with the "doctor".

[tim.glass]

Hmmm. . .We have the red one (10th edition) here in our office. The architect I work with swears it's the ONLY real source of information in the world. He says that the problem with CAD is that it has corrupted the "art" of drafting. http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/crazy2.gif

You know, I'm glad you mentioned 'art'. Trust me, I really, really enjoy drafting and using CADD tools. But there is something about a hand-drawn set, isn't there? And it's a little comical to me that AutoDesk has made a product (AutoDesk Impression) that allows users to make computer generated drawings look hand-drawn.

Just my 2 cents.

Tim Glass

[cadtag]

But there is something about a hand-drawn set, isn't there?

The best hand drafters could really produce clear, legible, concise, and attractive drawings, ones that are much more readable than any CAD generated plot to date. The little tricks, like turning the pencil, or slowing down/speeding up the pen, partial poche or hatchure, gave them an ability to communicate graphically that computer drafting today _CANNOT_ match, much less exceed. Excellent architectural or engineering hand lettering is much more readable than any shx, pdf, or ttf font, and endlessly adaptable to meet the exact needs of that moment.

CAD has helped improve design, and sped up many areas of productivity, especially changes. It's enabled even cruddy drafters with lousy linework to look professional (at a mediocre level). High-DPI plotters have freed us from breathing ammonia fumes, and saved many a back from the unnatural strains of board work.

The downside to that though, is a loss of aesthetics and readability, and dragged the production even the best drafting wizards down to that same level of aesthetic mediocrity.

I'm not willing to go back, but I recall what we're loosing. Greene & Greene drawings are artistic and historical treasures still of technical and aesthetic value. The site plans I'm doing today, will never be.

[Misteracad]

The best hand drafters could really produce clear, legible, concise, and attractive drawings, ones that are much more readable than any CAD generated plot to date. The little tricks, like turning the pencil, or slowing down/speeding up the pen, partial poche or hatchure, gave them an ability to communicate graphically that computer drafting today _CANNOT_ match, much less exceed. Excellent architectural or engineering hand lettering is much more readable than any shx, pdf, or ttf font, and endlessly adaptable to meet the exact needs of that moment.

CAD has helped improve design, and sped up many areas of productivity, especially changes. It's enabled even cruddy drafters with lousy linework to look professional (at a mediocre level). High-DPI plotters have freed us from breathing ammonia fumes, and saved many a back from the unnatural strains of board work.

The downside to that though, is a loss of aesthetics and readability, and dragged the production even the best drafting wizards down to that same level of aesthetic mediocrity.

I'm not willing to go back, but I recall what we're loosing. Greene & Greene drawings are artistic and historical treasures still of technical and aesthetic value. The site plans I'm doing today, will never be.
If you haven't done so, you should check out this thread and read my rant along w/ the responses. These topics are starting to overlap a little and you'll be happy to know we are not alone w/ regards to the lack of board-quality skills in today's drafting room :cry:

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=730914#post730914

[k.baxter]

I purchased 11 about a month ago and also was sadly disappointed. The problem is I bought it for my home library and feel a bit shafted. The last one I had was 9 and that was a copy at a previous job. I sit at home looking at it angry that its taking up space on my desk.