I'd like some constructive criticism

I've recently been told that my production drawings used throughout our plant must now look exactly and made exactly like our headquarters plant. I have several issues with the way these drawings are made and I'd like to get your thoughts, please.

 

I appreciate any and all input.

 

Brandon

drawings.dwg

This is what I noticed looking at it quickly.

 

Lots of stuff on layer 0. Defpoints used for viewports.

 

Hidden linetype for dim lines. Dims overlapping, pulled too far from the detail. Giving the diameter of the holes in the detail, no dia symbol at least. Centerlines are hidden linetype.

 

Details are different than what I am used to. Putting the Detail text in among the dims is odd. The details themselves are a little odd.

Thanks for the quick response, rkent. I'm using you guys as ammunition against the main draftsman and why I believe these drawings are no good. I've just been told that they've been using those drawings for years. That never means that it's right... Right?

I've just been told that they've been using those drawings for years. That never means that it's right... Right?

 

Of course not. It just means they've been doing it wrong for years.

 

I can only echo Rkent's comments. Drawing entities on Layer 0 and then overriding their properties is just bad drafting. And dimensions and center lines drawn with a dashed linetype? Why?

Who had the great idea of using YELLOW text on a white background? Where is it written that when working with cutting edge software all POLYLINES should look like they were drawn with a chisel tip magic marker? Back before Orville and Wilbur people had been walking where they wanted to go since the dawn of time (figuratively speaking). I too find the hidden line style to be really distracting on the dimension lines, continuous looks much better.

My arguments to my boss (crazy high upper management) must not based on "it's not right". My arguments must be based on, will it save time or is it more efficient?

 

Did anyone else notice that the head draftsman changes viewport scales and then changes the scales of his dimensions for that viewport? Why would you do that? When I try to draw like this it takes me forever. Am I doing something wrong?

If you really want to make an impression, figure out why he does what he does. Changing dimension scales to match the viewport is common practice. There is a method to his madness. It sounds like you've got ideas of your own. Present those and show why they are a better alternative. Applying numbers usually helps with superiors. Saying that it takes one hour to accomplish something using his method as compared to thirty minutes with your method goes a long way.

Edited August 29, 2013 by RobDraw

RobDraw,

 

I"m sure they'll just say to learn his methods and throw away my practices. I draw in Model Space and notate and dimension in paperspace. The only thing this draftsman uses paperspace for is the Title Block.

bbankston -

With the goal of showing that this can be done faster and more efficient I would point out the following.

The two sheets you sent have multiple viewports with multiple scales, they never seem to have the same scale. I was able to use one scale for all details and one scale for the overall.

 

The details should not ever be made by copying the area of the holes to another part of the drawing. This duplicates effort and makes you remember to update more than one area. You know and I know but I will say it, the details could be done by simply zooming in on the area needed and placing dimensions in paper space. If not that then two layers would work, one for overall dims, one for details.

 

The time used to hatch the detailed area is unnecessary and indicates material that has been sectioned, and not the idea that is being conveyed here.

 

The dims are non-sensical at times. The radius is 1/2" and it is dimensioned, then a 1/2" dim is given to locate its center, which is not needed and is just silly. A symetrical symbol could be used in det 4 for example with a note that dims are symetrical about the center hole.

 

There are 30 or more scales listed in the scale pulldown. What a waste of time to plow through all of those for the exact meaning of the one you need, like I said I used two scales for everything.

 

The details in MS need to be arranged better so they can be found easily. Large labels next to them for catagories and getting them lined up in a vertical arrangement to also make them easier to find.

 

I don't know if your company has quality certification they have to meet but those drawings would be a disaster for the reasons I mentioned in my first post.

rkent,

 

Wow. I'm sure you found most of that without the fine toothed comb. Hell, had you have I'm sure you'd find even more. You just brought up what I was trying to convey to the higher-up. He says he'll only listen to changes if it increases production. It should but I don't know how the lead draftsman is making them. He may have some method that makes sense to him and he can produce them quickly. I just don't know.

In past jobs I have been asked to non-standard things on drawings and the only way I could get through the day was to not put my initials on the drawing. I hated the idea that someone would think that was how I drafted.

 

 

The dashed dim lines could easily cause confusion on what goes where and creating a part that has to be thrown away. Same for copying parts to detail, big chance for a change to not be caught and production making it wrong.

 

Please don't call the person that made the drawing a draftsman, they are an AutoCAD user.

 

"I know Excel, I must be an accountant." rkent

" Please don't call the person that made the drawing a draftsman, they are an AutoCAD user."

 

That's funny.

 

He's actually an engineer from what I'm told. I like to call them imagineers.

 

He's actually an engineer from what I'm told. I like to call them imagineers.

 

 

Since we're on the subject now... Should I really be calling myself one? I'm self taught but, I believe I have a good grasp/understanding of drafting.

 

To me it's kind of like when someone calls themselves a Graphic Designer but all they really know is how to operate the programs. It hurts our industry when you have yahoos doing that. I believe the same would be for drafting.

Personally, I think if you can walk the walk as well as talk the talk you're good to go, but preferably would have qualifications to show that to an employer.

If you really want to make an impression, figure out why he does what he does. Changing dimension scales to match the viewport is common practice. There is a method to his madness. It sounds like you've got ideas of your own. Present those and show why they are a better alternative. Applying numbers usually helps with superiors. Saying that it takes one hour to accomplish something using his method as compared to thirty minutes with you method goes a long way.

Yeah, find out what's really going on first. How long has all of this has been going on differently with no felt need to change. Why change now? Why this way? How long did it take to make this decision? Who was involved in the process? And why weren't you? You may be stuck with the decision at this point, unless you can carefully and correctly present the right points. Very often, there are certain politics, not just policies, involved in this sort of thing. The whys here may be very important in making headway and in avoiding making enemies unnecessarily. BTW, are all the drawings already made company wide to be changed to match this standard? That could cost a bit.

neophoible,

 

There's no need to change previous drawings.

 

I take there are many on this forum that dimension this way? Y'know, dimensioning in model space and then changing the dim scale to best fit in the viewport? That seems to be inefficient to me. Why not dimension everything in paperspace? That way you don't have to change each scale in the viewport.

Dimensioning in paper space or model both have their pros and cons. It's really a matter of what you are used to and the requirements of your drawings. Before the days of annotative objects, I was taught to dimension in model space. I always had multiple dimension and text styles for different scales. I never did any overriding of styles. To me, that was improper.

The drawing looks crap to me to be honest.

 

You should dotpoint down why you think your drawings are better and then organise to have a meeting with the engineer and anyone else who cares as to ways of improving the drawing work flow (e.g. by implementing most of your ideas). If you can back it up with claims that your clients or external firms you share data with don't like your way of doing it, then the process might be improved.

 

Don't try and tell the engineer is wrong, try and tell him how we (not 'him') should constantly improve standards to keep up with industry practices.