Frustrated

[jaberwok]

thats the truth right there, once you standardize and automate you can force out the cowboy's, TAKES YEARS to do that though. We don't get many cowboys or cowgirls here because we weed them out, typically during the interviewing "process" and get topped by management once in a while. In the end, we get our glory though because cowboys don't work in our system, if you don't work in our system... .you don't work here.

But the people who work there may not be able to work anywhere else when the crunch comes.

[Hammer.John.J]

It would seem that way but we've had no less than 3 people come back because of the way we work here. The people who don't come back and we still talk to, come right out and say that our system is one of the best compared to where they are now.

I've found you either can work in a system or you can't. One system's differences from another are typically surmountable. People who work unconstrained don't fit well, in my experience, with companies that have systems. However, once you break them and rebuild them they'll never go back to the chaos and "free" cad world. People like constraints and limits, it gives them targets, bench marks, and a standard to uphold or exceed.

Not everyone is the same though and not all people can draft in organized, systematic environments.

We maybe systematic but there is clearly enough freedom to promote creativity while still maintaining a "standard" or "guideline"... thats the tough balance of CREATING guidelines.

[Richard.Kent]

Join the swamp.org, they have a Vent catagory.

http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?board=3.0

[Michael.c]

It would seem that way but we've had no less than 3 people come back because of the way we work here. The people who don't come back and we still talk to, come right out and say that our system is one of the best compared to where they are now.

I've found you either can work in a system or you can't. One system's differences from another are typically surmountable. People who work unconstrained don't fit well, in my experience, with companies that have systems. However, once you break them and rebuild them they'll never go back to the chaos and "free" cad world. People like constraints and limits, it gives them targets, bench marks, and a standard to uphold or exceed.

Not everyone is the same though and not all people can draft in organized, systematic environments.

We maybe systematic but there is clearly enough freedom to promote creativity while still maintaining a "standard" or "guideline"... thats the tough balance of CREATING guidelines.

While I agree that it is true, "systems" may have a certain degree of positive influence upon maintaining consistency in document output, in my opinion the over-riding factors are still the use of common sense, and a good, "take-pride-in-your-work" type of attitude, as opposed to the laziness we see all-too-often.
I concede that having a system in place can go some way in controlling such things as text heights and arrow heads within a drawing, but it is difficult to understand how it can prevent many other things that we see as a result of sloppy drafting. A few examples?
1. Drawing objects so small that when printed to the intended scale they appear as nothing but a blob.
2. Drawing lines so close to each other that, although they appear separate on a screen, they merge as one heavy line when printed to the intended scale.
3. Drawing lines over text making it illegible. MOVE THE TEXT for goodness sake!!
4. Crossing leader lines.
I could go on.....

[Opie]

I could go on.....

Couldn't we all.

[Michael.c]

Couldn't we all.

With 5483 posts to your name, it certainly looks like YOU do!

[jaberwok]

It takes time ... and dedication.

[Opie]

It takes time ... and dedication.

It looks like your dedication is getting to be a little bit greater than mine.

[Opie]

With 5483 posts to your name, it certainly looks like YOU do!

Holy Cow! I've been needing to get that counter fixed. It can't possibly be that high.

[S_Newton]

1. Drawing objects so small that when printed to the intended scale they appear as nothing but a blob.

To go a bit off topic, how should this be handled? As a user, I mean. I work in a custom architectural office. Everything is one-off, mostly.

Am I to draw something twice? In general, the partners here like to see high levels of detail on attachments and the like, so I end up popping in a block of a screw. It does indeed look like a blob when zoomed out to an overview.

So, do most of you place things on an A-xxx-Dtl layer and an A-xxx-Elev layer separately and change viewport visibilities to clean up drawings? I don't like to copy geometry over and detail it separately, as that can lead to mistakes.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.