CAD Standards manual, freely sharing with everyone...

[CADDmanVA]

Another good tool for layer management is AutoLayer (just Google it). Our Standard has about 200 layers in 5 major disciplines, and AutoLayer makes it stupid simple to manage them. It also comes packaged in a nice/neat UI and supports networks.

[Richard.Kent]

I made a few comments in your manual, open up the attached and look for the flags.

This is a good start for a manual, you will find as you go along the need for much more information to keep everyone working the same.

The CADS name is a little disconcerting and since you apparently do manual drafting the name is not accurate. Nothing wrong with just calling yourselves the Drafting Section. Unless there is a Manual Drafing Section and a Computer Aided Drafting Section. But, before there was CAD, no one called their group the Manual Drafting Section so why make the distinction now?

I am a proponent of the National CAD Standard. Instead of everyone, everywhere coming up with their own manual you can just adopt NCS and then add site specific information as needed. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. Many people that are very much against the NCS actually don't know much about it and have never even seen the book for themselves.

Ciao,
Kent

[CADDmanVA]

...I am a proponent of the National CAD Standard. Instead of everyone, everywhere coming up with their own manual you can just adopt NCS and then add site specific information as needed. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. Many people that are very much against the NCS actually don't know much about it and have never even seen the book for themselves...

Or the person with a check book just can't understand why anybody with a brain would spend good money on something like that. Did I mention that person more-than-likely has no clue how a CADD system works let alone works best?

I ran into this problem quite a bit in my earlier years, and just gave up on the NCS. I like the idea of it, but the cost is difficult to justify. I know, I know, the cost of having someone reinvent the wheel is higher, but you know how that works too...

[Richard.Kent]

Or the person with a check book just can't understand why anybody with a brain would spend good money on something like that. Did I mention that person more-than-likely has no clue how a CADD system works let alone works best?

I ran into this problem quite a bit in my earlier years, and just gave up on the NCS. I like the idea of it, but the cost is difficult to justify. I know, I know, the cost of having someone reinvent the wheel is higher, but you know how that works too...

Ask that person if they have ever gone out to eat. I bet they could cook the same thing at home

For me it was a no-brainer. We are a manufacturing site and have various A/E, MEP providing services to us. Instead of coming up with a standard for them to follow, it is easy enough to just say in the contract "follow NCS". The $380 was saved in that instant and it is harder for the A/E firms to argue for their standard over mine, etc.

And there are some A/E's here that have embraced the NCS, so guess which firms I am more likely to want to use?

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."

[CADDmanVA]

Ask that person if they have ever gone out to eat. I bet they could cook the same thing at home

For me it was a no-brainer. We are a manufacturing site and have various A/E, MEP providing services to us. Instead of coming up with a standard for them to follow, it is easy enough to just say in the contract "follow NCS". The $380 was saved in that instant and it is harder for the A/E firms to argue for their standard over mine, etc.

And there are some A/E's here that have embraced the NCS, so guess which firms I am more likely to want to use?

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."

Very good points. I'll have to use that when the subject comes up again. Thanks.

[Richard.Kent]

Very good points. I'll have to use that when the subject comes up again. Thanks.

And if you have a client telling you in a contract to use NCS then you can go to your bean counters and say "Our client says we must follow UCS, may I have a measely $380 so we can comply with their request." Some smart accountant could probably charge it back to the client so they would end up paying for it anyway.

[CADDmanVA]

And if you have a client telling you in a contract to use NCS then you can go to your bean counters and say "Our client says we must follow UCS, may I have a measely $380 so we can comply with their request." Some smart accountant could probably charge it back to the client so they would end up paying for it anyway.

Of course, this is the topic which has always confused me. With the exception of a few consultation projects, I have never seen a customer request CADD files of any sort. They want sealed hard copy plots, and that's all they care about.

[Richard.Kent]

Of course, this is the topic which has always confused me. With the exception of a few consultation projects, I have never seen a customer request CADD files of any sort. They want sealed hard copy plots, and that's all they care about.

I have worked in or on Power Plants, Pulp and Paper facilities, and semi-conductor facilities and they all expect to receive CAD files. There are lots of changes continually made after the initial construction and having the files is pretty much essential. I also have worked on National Lab projects and they always expect the CAD files.

[jaberwok]

Similar here.
Power, nuclear power, ship building; all the clients stipulate not only that they want CAD files but the format of the files - software, version and layers, colours, etc..

[s_morgan_b]

Good to see a series of standards and how people have tried to implement same.

I'm going to be in this dreaded position over the winter and I'm not looking forward to this (I've done standards in two smaller companies for autocad back in the 90s). This is a medium sized company with several disciplines and individuals that have no grasp of working as a team - it could be "interesting"

The whole works will include:

- Layer naming conventions
- Colour conventions (including no hard colours)
- line type conventions
- new/revised/updated/etc title sheets
- an outline on cross-referencing (I still can't get some ppl away from circular)
- folder naming conventions

Its going to be rather all encompassing and I am *not* looking forward to this as people here have done whatever they want, for how ever long they've wanted, and trying to break those habits will be difficult at best.

I'm thinking that adopting the NCS (with minimal changes) should work rather well (the only version I've found to date - in any detail - is the guideline presented by the WesArmyMil Cad Standards rev 1.8+).