See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Upper vs Lower

  1. #11
    All AUGI, all the time Richard McDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    2002-01
    Location
    At right angles to reality
    Posts
    537
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Upper vs Lower

    During all my training at a board I was never pointed towards any of the BS's. You just drew exactly the way the lead Drafee told you or else............

    British Standards are still only a guide and even at a board we used lower case in our notes drawing an extra guide line to do so.

    Some places liked your style and writing to be slightly different so they could tell who had done what, other places liked everything to be the same with British Gas sending everybody on a residential to become Drafting clones.

  2. #12
    Certified AUGI Addict jaberwok's Avatar
    Join Date
    2000-12
    Location
    0,0,0 The Origin
    Posts
    8,570
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Upper vs Lower

    I think it's probably another industry-related preference.
    IME in mech.eng. (for nearly 50 years) it has always been all upper case.
    My impression, right or wrong, is that it's the architecture crowd who go for mixed case.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    2011-10
    Posts
    29
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Upper vs Lower

    I left the Mech Eng world 12 years ago and moved to Civil/Structural.
    It was then that I transitioned to mixed case. However various jobs have also had broad crossover with Mech Eng (not M&E), I've usually been the one lumped as being ambassador between the two due to my experience, and I noticed over the last 6 years is that there's been a move to mixed mixed case there as well...

  4. #14
    100 Club
    Join Date
    2006-08
    Location
    London
    Posts
    177
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Upper vs Lower

    Thanks for the link Paul Oakley,

    IMHO, whilst I agree that standards are important (and that, if you are going to have standards - you might as well use the BS/ISO ones) I think that it is important to remember that a CAD standard documents your company's process - not the other way around.

    If you write a 500 page Odessy, bang it down on everyone's desk and say DO THAT! the chances are - you will be ignored.

    Remember, drafters aren't lazy- they are busy. they don't have time to learn the standards by themselves. If you have examined your companies process and you genuinely have a case for implementing a particular part of the standard to improve productivity, first make it easier to follow than not to follow (i.e. by setting up templates, toolpallettes or by using a bit of programming), then train everyone (small doses, make it easy to take on the new methods) then document the new process in your CAD standard.

    Finally, I recommend reporting the new process back to management - making sure that your users know that management are being informed. Demonstration, persuasion and peer pressure may yet bring Mr 'Stuck in his ways' around!

    Finally - to the 'Upper case lower case' question - yes, BS 8888 was written (well) before CAD and much of it was written with hand drafting in mind. I was also taught that upper case lettering (or 'PRINTING' letters) looked neater when writing by hand (I still have sheets and sheets of practice lettering,to this day I can no longer do joined up handwriting...).

    In fact, if you use any Font apart from the 'ISO' ones, then you are not implementing the BS 8888 standard correctly, but I ask you - who doesn't use their company font on their drawings these days? I think that it is OK to deviate from the standard on this sort of element, as it doesn't effect your ability to collaborate with others. Standardizing elements such as 'Container naming' (Layer names, Block names, and the names of the files themselves) is far more important.

    P.S. If you need help customizing your AutoCAD or Revit installation I highly recommend Mr Oakley

    Paul Munford

  5. #15
    All AUGI, all the time
    Join Date
    2016-02
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    512
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Upper vs Lower

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernal_CAD_Monkey View Post
    I've recently joined a new Civil/Structural/Energy company, and have been tasked with developing a new set of CAD standards based on current BS & ISO standards.

    Now to put this task into context; on my first day the senior draftsman proudly explained how all their drawings are already standards complient, have full block capitilised text etc, all according to BS 308.

    BS 308.

    They don't even use Xref's here yet, everythings blocks copied and pasted into hundreds of drawings. And there's worse... dimensioning in paperspace, overriding dimensions! And don't get me started on the layering, actually I can't, because there is none!

    Now having presented the standard there is the inevitable backlash, from the same people who tasked me with developing it, and especially from Mr 308 who ended his contribution to the meeting with "Well I'm going to keep on doing things properly and you can stick that in your standard'.

    *sigh*

    I'm glad that's off my chest. I feel better.

    But am I wrong?
    I believe in the benefits of AEC layering convention, and the use of well structured XRef's will cut out most of the mistakes that keep on going unnoticed, as will not dimensioning in paperspace. And lowercase text is far easier to read than block capilisation.
    Or am I right? Am I being just as stuborn?

    Anyone have any advice?
    Produce a drawing in upper only & a copy in lower, and ask managment which they prefer. Once that is desided, teach the team how to use express tools, and Design manager. Perhaps set up default profiles and locked UI. I'd definatly steer the team to pallets and standardisation of the block library. Perhaps building layer translation templates to assit in convertion of legacy files. Be flexible on some issues, such as paperspace dimensioning (which I agree is not good), and you will find that they will be more willing to absorb new standards. The use of X-refs depends on work sharing, file size, etc. I'd incorperate this as a second stage of upgrade. A third stage would be Sheet set manager, but that is not is for everbody.
    I remember following 1192 in the old hand drawn days, and my lettering was/still is pretty shocking. I used stencils allot, which is why I suppose upper case became the norm. When transition to CAD was new, allot of the comments at the time were on text lacking that "hand drawn feel", and some used font's like City Blueprint to convey this. Also using visual styles (since 2007) to wiggle and over run end lines helped, but both these features havn't been used extensivly in the places I've worked.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. force UPPER/lower case in text
    By MikeJarosz in forum Revit Architecture - General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2012-09-13, 02:35 PM
  2. Lower Left and Upper Right Corner
    By avinash patil in forum VBA/COM Interop
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2011-08-31, 11:10 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-01-09, 12:42 PM
  4. Upper/Lower case text
    By djn in forum Revit Architecture - General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2007-01-05, 10:40 PM
  5. Layer names from lower to upper case
    By dqueen in forum AutoCAD Customization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-06-23, 03:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •