tzframpton Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I think that the ENGLISH should have the last say on how words are spelt in ENGLISH. Or, you & Jack could accept the cultural differences from two entirely different countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANIEL Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 That's why I speak American Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_O'neill Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I think that the ENGLISH should have the last say on how words are spelt in ENGLISH.We all know that our children take time to learn how to spell correctly. (No offence intended, just making a point). None taken, I was making a joke...that's what the meant. But while we are on the subject..."Spelt"? Spelt is a strain of wheat my friend. I think you meant "spelled". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLW210 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I think that the ENGLISH should have the last say on how words are spelt in ENGLISH. We all know that our children take time to learn how to spell correctly. (No offence intended, just making a point). No offenSe, but the English are not even capable of using their own measuring system. Why would we leave the language in their hands? I do prefer Aluminium to Aluminum, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbroada Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 but the English are not even capable of using their own measuring system. we gave it away as a joke but some people can't see the funny side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldon Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Why would we leave the language in their hands? I do prefer Aluminium to Aluminum, though. Tut tut, a Mod who is a spelling pedant It should be writ somewhere in large letters that this is a Cad forum and not a spelling bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irneb Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 we gave it away as a joke but some people can't see the funny side.And isn't it just the funniest thing? :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_O'neill Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 wunce you talks englesh good, can't nobody change ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nukecad Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Spelt is a strain of wheat my friend. I think you meant "spelled". :lol:Yep; even us Brits have trouble with our own language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qball Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I get all that but we often get detail drawings from engineers and architects that show a connection plate for instance with hole sizes/plate thickness and overall area but it will still be done at say 1:20. Doesn't make sense at all. You mean a Cad copy or a paper copy comes in like that? I work with an Architect who said his details were 1:8. We use imperial inches and feet, so I guess that translates to 3/8" = 1'-0"..... either way, what an odd scale. (I was going to say that it's not even on a standard scale, but I just looked and it is... doh) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irneb Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (I was going to say that it's not even on a standard scale, but I just looked and it is... doh)That cooks my noodle! I'm in the same confused state about those "mixed" scales. If you're doing your drawing in imperial, then why have such scales as 1:8 ... that's an ISO-like scale name, and if ISO then you "should" be using metric shouldn't you? One problem we have though is that the standardized set of ISO scales (see clause 7.5) don't always cut the cake. E.g. we very often use something like 1:25, sometimes even 1:75 (or any 10x derivative of those, e.g. 1:250 1:2.5 1:750). Look you'll see the 1:25 scale on all metric scale rulers, and even the 1:75 on most. You sometimes even get the 1:33 1/3 scale on a ruler, though that one's very seldom used in my experience. I've NEVER seen a 1:8, 1:16, 1:30 or 1:40 on any ruler whatsoever, the first time I saw these was in ACad's scale list . I suppose if they're out there, people's go'nna use 'em! But if you have that note about not scaling, I suppose it doesn't matter much - else the poor guy measuring off your drawing is going to have to pull over a calculator pretty soon! If it's a CAD copy drawn at 1:20 in model space, the guy should be enlightened - preferably using a stupid stick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organic Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 What is worse is when you get drawings from a government agency with scales such as 1:77.295 or 1:119.563 etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irneb Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 What is worse is when you get drawings from a government agency with scales such as 1:77.295 or 1:119.563 etc...Do you mean they actually made such scales in the scale list? Or worse their linework in model space is scaled to thise arb figures! If it's just that the viewport is zoomed to that factor (I'm being generous here ) then it's possible that the vp wasn't locked and their finger accidentally "touched" that scroll wheel! If they consciously zoomed the vp to that scale to "make it fit" ... then they should have a note on it stating NTS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organic Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Do you mean they actually made such scales in the scale list? Or worse their linework in model space is scaled to thise arb figures! If it's just that the viewport is zoomed to that factor (I'm being generous here ) then it's possible that the vp wasn't locked and their finger accidentally "touched" that scroll wheel! If they consciously zoomed the vp to that scale to "make it fit" ... then they should have a note on it stating NTS ! We don't get the CAD files (so I have no idea what their modelspace is scaled at), just physical paper plans (which they charge you for). The scales on the plans are always printed on the plan as that, i.e. 1:77.295 (where they basically just fit it on the page as you say). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irneb Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 WTH! You mean they actually WROTE that into a piece of text on the page? Are they on ACID or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organic Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 WTH! You mean they actually WROTE that into a piece of text on the page? Are they on ACID or something? Yes, that is actually written into a piece of text on the page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irneb Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 OK that means one of 2 things, both of which means they're a bit screwy in the head!: That's typed in, which could even mean it's not the "correct" scale as drawn. Never mind that it's a non-rational scale! They actually made a scale like that in the scalelist and then set the text to show the VP's scale (if in Paperspace) / CAnnoScale (if in Modelspace) in a field. Yet this could still also mean it's not the scale as drawn! Here it shows the scale's name, not its ratio and also not its zoom factor. So seeing something like that on a page would make me worry to bits! Or is the text part of the plot stamp perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irneb Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Or is that coming from something like those old micro-film records? Some of our local municipalities still use those things! You go to their offices, ask to view a particular erf#, go sit at the machine, find the relevant drawng(s) and ask them to print it for you. Only to find it's not to scale, but worse: can hardly be read as it's faded too much. Anecdotally: the oldest building I worked on (about 15 years ago) was converting Port Elizabeth's original harbor master's house (built in 1825) to an office building (needed some serious sensitivity as it's a heritage site). There was absolutely no record of it, had to go measure every nook-n-cranny to draw up the new plans for submission! I see since then they've given it some paint! Can't remember choosing those colours: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLW210 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 WTH! You mean they actually WROTE that into a piece of text on the page? Are they on ACID or something? He did say it was a Government agency! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.