CAD Standards updates annually as a minimum

as is the norm at this time of year for me, I am currently reading our current 'Standards' Manual over and over again (what fun !)

After this, I then plan to rewrite it all pretty much from scratch; due to the fact of the upgrade to AutoCAD 2008, and I wish to document how to use the new features I have been trumpeting to all and sundry here.

Proving to be a right royal PITA though.

After a couple of hours of doing it, my motivation is at a low point, and I'm nowhere near half way though yet.

Worst of all, this year, I have to link the new standards into the Quality Assurance Procedure of the company. Arrrghh, hell on paper, I kid you not.

Anyways, thats what fun (!?!?) I'm currently enduring.

Anyone else required to do this kind of thing ?

If so, care to share your best ways of getting it done.

Bearing in mind, that there will be need to be some associated training for all users in the office (and satellite offices) once it is all complete and signed off.

C'mon, I know there are some of you out there.

I have now been with my company for a year and a half. Since I've started, I've basically flushed out 80-90% of the "standards" this company was built on, from Layer Names, XREF'ing, Titleblocks, Dim Styles, Tool Palettes, and many more. It has become way more effecient and much easier to control drawings, that's for sure - and my boss (which is also our Mechanical Engineer) absolutely loves what I did for this company. And all I did was follow what I asked on these forums, whether it be from a post or a link.

But yes, it's been a long and dreadful task, but everything is worth it in the end. Now only if I could get everyone else to follow the standards 100%, that would be nice.... haha

I work in a small office, but since we are looking heavly into ACA 2008 from doing 2d drawings, I have taken on the sole responsibility of updating our standards to match the new stuff, IE everything lol.

It does take a lot of work, especialy since the foundation is very old.

Hang in there.

I am currently reviewing/rewriting out CAD Standards. I had been delaying it to give me a chance to review the new BS 1192:2007 (British Standards), and well, what a waste that was.

I am new to the company and have been discussing aspects of the standards with some of the long-termers, and believe me, I am not relishing the coming meetings.

As a process for developing standards, I currently develop them in isolation of software, so to fit with any and all applications, within reason, and then develop a training/tutorial package on the side to distribute with the standards.

I have found this method to be less stressful as it will allow you to concentrate on the standards for layering, file naming, etc. without worrying about whether the users will know what to do. That way, the standards will be your best possible work, and then tutorials can follow.

In my experience, standards are never adhered to from day 1, there is usually a buffer period, which then allows you to provide the required training to ensure the users know the addition aspects of the software on which the standards have an affect.

As a side note, I am less than impressed with the new BS, and would like to review an in depth version of the current AIA. If anyone has a copy they could share, or direct me to, it would be greatly appreciated.

Well have fun. Hopefully it is comforting to know that you are not alone.

Cheers

We're in the process of trying to standardise our CAD systems across a nationwide set of offices using a combination of MEP/ABS & CadDuct which is proving to be a bit of a headache as each has it's strengths & weaknesses... as soon as you set one thing up someone will pipe up & say that their prog won't do that. As usual there's a lot of deliberation over layering but in truth that's a set-up & forget system now... once it's in I won't ever refer to it 'cos it's all generated automatically & I use different tools for service isolation on screen now.

One thing I will say is that it's all well & good having systems in place so long as they are not too restrictive & have the flexibility to allow some shortcuts when the situation dictates.

One thing I will say is that it's all well & good having systems in place so long as they are not too restrictive & have the flexibility ...

This is why the only layer naming standard I prescribe here is that all layer names must begin with the initials of the company name. Other than that, there is no standard per se, except for certain entities eg. text, dimensions, layout frames and viewports. but then they are already preset.

sighs, i'm waffling, i'll get me coat

Gah, what a painful afternoon this has been.

Coming to a close now with finalising the write-up of the updates to CAD Standards here.

What a job and a half it is trying to explain the mechanisms of x-ref's - revisions and updates included.

My head hurts.

Only one more main section to go after this one, and that is the fun of plotting.

....that all layer names must begin with the initials of the company name...

interesting: why?

this is because it will make it a darn sight easier to identify what layers our users are creating/using when they are drawing on top of any drawings that we receive from external sources

I have introduced that myself, and had to explain why, and that was one of the reasons for it.

It is unreal how much dispute it caused, all for 3 little letters....

I have introduced that myself, and had to explain why, and that was one of the reasons for it.

 

It is unreal how much dispute it caused, all for 3 little letters....

May I ask what your other reasons were ?

Layernaming

Company initals then the relevant BS or ISO code ?

Nick

Nah, nothing prescriptive other than company initials on the layers.

the BS / ISO layer naming conventions are primarily based on the uniclass system and almost certainly would not be adopted by the users where i work (nor by myself, might i add).

the users have enough difficulty in drawing entities on separate layers as it is, without confusing them by naming layers after non-sensical combinations of alpha-numerics.

Layernaming `_S-****'

`S' - for structural and the `_' because it puts them on top of all layer lists without having to filter..

Layernaming:

"D *" for Design layers

"ex *" for existing features layers

"z *" for seldom used or umimportant layers such as title sheets, viewports etc.

That way they all list in the layer manager as to the importance of the layers.

Nah, nothing prescriptive other than company initials on the layers.

the BS / ISO layer naming conventions are primarily based on the uniclass system and almost certainly would not be adopted by the users where i work (nor by myself, might i add).

the users have enough difficulty in drawing entities on separate layers as it is, without confusing them by naming layers after non-sensical combinations of alpha-numerics.

I would of thought - firewalls, elec, plumbing etc are all logically named for searching and if someone is out of the office another worker can access and edit a drawing as the layers are named according to the stds ?

If 12yr olds, in my class, know at least 5 linetypes and layers can adults not follow it ? My classes follow architectrual and engineering stds eg hatching, subsoil, insulation, floorplan symbols

Nick

...

 

If 12yr olds, in my class, know at least 5 linetypes and layers can adults not follow it ? My classes follow .....

Nick

Mr T

I am interested to read you teach 12 yr olds in AutoCAD. Can you briefly say what projects they do? Do you have the 'national curriculum' in Scotland?

(Should this be in another thread?)

I would of thought - firewalls, elec, plumbing etc are all logically named for searching and if someone is out of the office another worker can access and edit a drawing as the layers are named according to the stds ?

 

If 12yr olds, in my class, know at least 5 linetypes and layers can adults not follow it ? My classes follow architectrual and engineering stds eg hatching, subsoil, insulation, floorplan symbols

 

Nick

That kind of layer naming is not part of any British Standard that I am aware of, as the BS's almost always refer to a Uniclass method of alpha-numeric layer naming that unless you have the sheets in front of you at all time, would be impossible to remember.

Bah !

Utter doo.

As a result of my work on the CAD Manual I just released to the UK arm of our company, I have now been tasked with developing this Manual into a Manual fit for all offices worldwide. No pressure then !

Bah !

Utter doo.

 

As a result of my work on the CAD Manual I just released to the UK arm of our company, I have now been tasked with developing this Manual into a Manual fit for all offices worldwide. No pressure then !

Hey blue,

any chance I can have a copy for my reference?