Copying Floor Plans (paper) to an AutoCAD dwg

[Jack_O'neill]

Maybe some of you guys live in a different realm than I do. I've been doing this on the architectural side for almost 10 years (mechanical drawing before that) and am yet to get a set of plans from an architect that were "fully dimensioned" as someone said. Every job I get requires either getting on the phone and asking, or emailing the customer for more information or at worst case, making what I call a "swag" (silly wild a$$ guess). The ones I hate the most are where they force dimensions. Had one the other day like that. Two rooms side by side, one was 16 feet wide, the other was 14'6", but the overall was 28'. Dims went to the centerline of the walls. I know I went to school in Arkansas, but 14'6" plus 16' is 30'6"...not 28'.

 

To the OP's question...draw 1:1 in model space using any available dimensions and units appropriate for your location and needs. Hopefully there are at least some. If you have to scale some of them, check yourself against a known distance (both in x and y if you can) to see if the drawing you have is actually drawn to the scale it says it is. If not, you may have to get creative. For example, if the dimensions say a room is 15 x 30, then the 30 side should be exactly twice as long as the 15 side, no matter what scale it's drawn in and you can establish your distances that way.

[ReMark]

I live in the realm of Connecticut. The exact area I live in is referred to as the Kingdom of Confusion. It's right next door to Doubter's Domain and Guesser's Gap.

 

I've seen several sets of plans that were fully dimensioned but that's the exception to the rule. Most plans leave a dimension or two by the wayside as the architect pushes to get them out the door. Maybe the he figures what the heck, if the contractor has a question he'll call (Really? You think so?) or he'll make it up as he goes along.

[Jack_O'neill]

I live in the realm of Connecticut. The exact area I live in is referred to as the Kingdom of Confusion. It's right next door to Doubter's Domain and Guesser's Gap.

 

I've seen several sets of plans that were fully dimensioned but that's the exception to the rule. Most plans leave a dimension or two by the wayside as the architect pushes to get them out the door. Maybe the he figures what the heck, if the contractor has a question he'll call (Really? You think so?) or he'll make it up as he goes along.

 

That's great!

 

With some of what I've seen on commercial buildings, it doesn't matter if they dimension it anyway. The concrete guys think they got it right if they poured concrete in the right town, never mind what that paper says. I wind up changing stuff all the time because the opening for the curtain wall is a foot off, or the slab is 6 inches shorter than plan or....well you've seen it I'm sure. The residential guys, while some better are not perfect either. Had to redo a two story house once because the builder put the trusses up backwards so I had to turn the top floor around and still make everything work.

 

I've even resorted at times to using post-it notes as scales with tickmarks drawn on by hand.

[cadvision]

Again check out Raster editing solutions from CSoft www.csoft.com The WiseImage range have be leading the way for the past 15+ years.

[bluepepper]

Hi, sorry for not replying for a long time and resurrecting the thread but

 

uhm to clarify things,

 

The attached images below are from the same paper.

As you can see, not all lines are dimensioned and both drawings are scaled differently.

 

How would I go about in drawing this in AutoCAD?

What should my Drawing Units (ie Insertion Scale) be?

 

etc

[ReMark]

I would draw them from scratch (no jpg, or bmp or pfd) and at full size in model space. That is where I would start. Forget about dimensioning and text until the objects themselves are fully drawn.

[bluepepper]

So using an architect's scale to measure the un-dimensioned(?) lines is correct?

 

And so err.. for example, If I were to draw a single glass panel at full size in model space I would input it as 0.97 x 2.20?

 

I R Confused

[ccowgill]

I'd use Architectural units that way you can enter it in feet and inches (11.64" x 2'-2.4").

[ReMark]

It's just an exercise so yeah, go ahead, take out your architect's scale and using the correct scale take a measurement. Does it seem to make sense? Yes? Then the drawing was done to scale. No? Then the drawing may have been done to scale originally but the version you now have was either scaled up or down and is no longer to scale.

 

0.97 x 2.20? What kind of architect's scale are you using?

[eldon]

0.97 x 2.20? What kind of architect's scale are you using?

 

That was no scaling. That was a dimensioned dimension.

 

Anyway, in the first post, the OP says something about metres, so that is a metric dimension. Converted to feet and inches is 3' - 2¼" x 7' - 2½" approximately

[ccowgill]

well thats what I get for not reading. I guess, yes each panel would be drawn 2.2 units high by .97 units wide. Unless you choose to run in mm as your base unit instead of m

[ReMark]

Oh, oh! Here we go again. Converting from metric to imperial. I see a few mistakes in someone's future. Why not draw it in metric BUT utilize alternate units as found in the Dimension Style Manager?

[SLW210]

Oh, oh! Here we go again. Converting from metric to imperial. I see a few mistakes in someone's future. Why not draw it in metric BUT utilize alternate units as found in the Dimension Style Manager?

 

Why must you make the complicated easy?

 

I agree draw in metric, like the supplied prints and use alternate units if imperial is needed.

 

With some of what I've seen on commercial buildings, it doesn't matter if they dimension it anyway. The concrete guys think they got it right if they poured concrete in the right town, never mind what that paper says. I wind up changing stuff all the time because the opening for the curtain wall is a foot off, or the slab is 6 inches shorter than plan or....well you've seen it I'm sure.

 

That is a fact, I will be years getting the drawings and locations corrected around here.

[eldon]

There are places in the world that can cope with metric units ONLY.

[SLW210]

There are places in the world that can cope with metric units ONLY.

 

It is duly noted that the Imperials have abondoned the Imperial measuring system.

 

Personally I like the metric system better, but the U.S will most likely never fully embrace metrics.

 

I guess I should use the proper term for the metric system, "S.I. Units".

Edited January 12, 2011 by SLW210
Political correctness

[Ryder76]

I'm so glad I do electrical schematics.

[bluepepper]

So what I would do is to draw the objects using the dimensioned measurements, and if no dimensions are present, I would use the appropriate architect's scale to measure..

 

then change the viewport scale to 1:10 for the first drawing and 1:40 for the second? ?

 

(both drawings are on the same paper/page)

[ReMark]

Seems like the way to go.

 

Have you given any thought to using alternate units when it comes time to dimension the drawing?

 

Will you be using annotative scaling for your text and dimensions?

[bluepepper]

Do you mean alternate units as imperial/metric?

 

Yes I'll try using annotative scaling for those.

 

And thanks for all the help and advice everyone.

[ReMark]

Yes, alternate units. Both metric and imperial dimensions on the same drawing. It may save you some headaches.