National CAD Standards for Civil

[cadtag]

I'm researching the use of the US National CAD Standards as it's being applied, or could be applied to civil engineering and design. In particular, if you're using the NCS for Civil, what works now, and what could work better for your tasks?

If you're not using the NCS for your civil design work, why not? What about or in the NCS is preventing you, or is unworkable for your organization/work?

Either way, what areas of the NCS could be improved to provide a better fit for civil design work? What can or should be added? more abbreviations? better integration with Masterspec 2010? more or better symbols and linetypes? Lineweights?

inquiring minds want to know!

[GreyHippo]

The Board of Directors purchased it 5+ years ago without input from the CADD department, I think it was version 3.0. When I first got it and started reading it, I was pleased with it because the previous Manager never put together any type of CADD Standard, so I was happy to finally be able to put together an actual CADD Standard. Currently we are using the layering, file naming and sheet organization sections and all have been modified to our/my preferences. What I didn't like about it was that is was mostly just a binder full of paper, it would have been nice if they included some type of digital file (autocad template...). Once thing I don't like about the layer naming convention and I am considering changeing, is the use of "-N" or "-E"at the end of the layer name, by the way those notations tell you if it's new or existing feature. I would rather have that notation near the beginning, so that all proposed layers are grouped together.

[Kung Fu Drafter]

Hey, I'm working on a post/article about this! Stop reading ahead, dang it!

I work for a small civil firm and we too got our grubby hands of V3 of the NCS. That is some exciting, page turning writing there! We read through it and arrived at some conclusions. Mainly that there wasn't alot to be said in terms of civil drafting. So what we did was take the NCS as a basis and hybridize it into a format of file naming, layering, base sheet organization and directory structure that worked for us.

Then most of our office went and did their own thing. However, I rule with an iron gerbil and my office has kept the faith. I would say that out 75% NCS 25% custom system works well for us. But everyone, everywhere, has their own way to swing.

- KFD -

[tedg]

Hey, I'm working on a post/article about this! Stop reading ahead, dang it!

I work for a small civil firm and we too got our grubby hands of V3 of the NCS. That is some exciting, page turning writing there! We read through it and arrived at some conclusions. Mainly that there wasn't alot to be said in terms of civil drafting. So what we did was take the NCS as a basis and hybridize it into a format of file naming, layering, base sheet organization and directory structure that worked for us.

Then most of our office went and did their own thing. However, I rule with an iron gerbil and my office has kept the faith. I would say that out 75% NCS 25% custom system works well for us. But everyone, everywhere, has their own way to swing.

- KFD -

Loved your TIDBIT on "P.E. Does NOT mean Practically Everything"

I feel your pain there!

[Kung Fu Drafter]

Loved your TIDBIT on "P.E. Does NOT mean Practically Everything"

I feel your pain there!

Well thank you. I don't want to hijack the thread, but trust me that was a day when I just could not take it any more! A week later the same person explained to an EIT (while I was in the room!) how I was stupid. But his words were "... they come from a different 'background' than we do." And the way he said "background" made it clear he was implying I was somehow less of a person. Even the EIT emailed me and said "I was standing there thinking 'is this conversation REALLY happening' but it was."

Grr.

- KFD -

[cadtag]

Well thank you. I don't want to hijack the thread, but trust me that was a day when I just could not take it any more! A week later the same person explained to an EIT (while I was in the room!) how I was stupid. But his words were "... they come from a different 'background' than we do." And the way he said "background" made it clear he was implying I was somehow less of a person. Even the EIT emailed me and said "I was standing there thinking 'is this conversation REALLY happening' but it was."

Grr.

- KFD -

just remember, all it really takes to get a p.e. is a 2.0 average, and an aptitude for taking tests. A touch of augspergers helps in eliminating those inconvenient social skills. Those letters do not mean he/she can tie her shoes without help.

I've worked with wonders, at both ends of the spectrum - full bore geniuses and PEs who darn near needed instructions printed on the sole to pour sand out of their boots. Unfortunately, it's the latter who invariably think that their registration automagically confers expertise in every field.

[Kung Fu Drafter]

A touch of augspergers helps in eliminating those inconvenient social skills.

I almost spit out my lemonade laughing.

- KFD -

[Misteracad]

OMG, I'm enjoying this thread WAY more than I should in a professional atmosphere LOL

Don't get me started on those peeps who think they know way more than they do. I can't help but refer to my tag line below..."You don't know what you don't know!" lol

[cadtag]

One of the recurring symptoms of the engineer's disease (not to be confused with legionnaires disease) is the bizarre delusion that expertise in a single narrow field confers expertise in any other field. Occasionally the disease cures itself with the aid of large doses of reality, other cases never recover, and spend the rest of their career suffering such delusions. (or more truthfully, causing their associates to suffer from their delusions.)

[jaberwok]

One of the recurring symptoms of the engineer's disease (not to be confused with legionnaires disease) is the bizarre delusion that expertise in a single narrow field confers expertise in any other field. Occasionally the disease cures itself with the aid of large doses of reality, other cases never recover, and spend the rest of their career suffering such delusions. (or more truthfully, causing their associates to suffer from their delusions.)

So true, so true. :shakehead: