Do you review drawings? what does a good set of drawings look like to you?

[tzframpton]

I can't see that ever happening well within a firm, let alone between multiple firms.

Maybe not with AutoCAD. With Revit, absolutely.

 

When are people going to realize there's more than just AutoCAD out there in the design world?

[jmerch]

Maybe not with AutoCAD. With Revit, absolutely.

 

When are people going to realize there's more than just AutoCAD out there in the design world?

 

That's a double-edged sword sure, if companies had money to upgrade to Revit (now included in a stupid bundle), will they use it right? I have yet to receive Revit files from a company where, from what I can tell, they used Revit correctly. I know you are very knowledgeable in it, there's no doubt. But I know a lot of people that have had it for years and don't even know what you're talking about. I'm not starting a Revit debate by any means, I'm just saying people need to learn whatever software they're using before rolling it out to their users and guide them through it. I know a large firm that uses Revit, never sent anyone to training and expects them to self-train. They're not all as ambitious as you or I therefore they slag by, just as in ACAD You're going to find these issues with any software, just like in ACAD putting everything on one layer.

[tzframpton]

You're going to find these issues with any software, just like in ACAD putting everything on one layer.

Not really, actually. Revit solves this issue. If you make one change to a Family in Revit, you change ALL of them. Point is, it may be wrong, but they're ALL wrong, which is "consistent".

 

Now with Revit Server, outside firms can get in on the project and will have to compromise to the "owner" of the project's Families. Standards are built into the Families and Project Parameters. Now of course, yes, there are still things that can be manipulated but if a Revit project is set up right then it's real hard to.

 

The "not everyone's on Revit" argument still applies, no doubt. There was once a time where the transition from hand drafting to AutoCAD saw plenty of gaps I'm sure. As Revit continues to grow this gap will close. Also, Revit isn't an extension of AutoCAD, but also a fully enterprise level collaboration tool as well. I must say, Revit is very well thought out. The topic of the thread alone is one of many reasons why Revit came along - to fix all the downfalls of programs like AutoCAD. It is extremely difficult to have overall consistency in AutoCAD but with Revit it's possible, and with ease.

 

*EDIT*

For the record, I'm not trying to argue back, either. It's just when people like Organic get in here and post "it's not possible" then I have to speak up when I know this is a false statement. Of course he's correct if everyone's using AutoCAD - my point was to refute the not "possible idea", only with another design tool.

 

[jmerch]

Ok, I'll give you that. When the day comes when we receive a Revit model from an engineer that actually works for me, I'll let you know

[tzframpton]

Ok, I'll give you that. When the day comes when we receive a Revit model from an engineer that actually works for me, I'll let you know

Next time you win a bid and my company is the engineer, you'll get a good Revit model. I'll see to it personally, haha.

 

[Organic]

Maybe not with AutoCAD. With Revit, absolutely.

 

When are people going to realize there's more than just AutoCAD out there in the design world?

 

I work for a large multinational firm and Revit is used in-house for buildign design. Are those Revit files used by other departments? No. There are a few reasons for this

1) more industry accepted structural software is used and Revit Structure is not used (we did test it for a period though). Civil engineering needs are not met by Revit and discipline design software is used with plan production done in AutoCad. The fire engineers use their own design software and then AutoCad for plan production. Mechanical design was phased out and is now contracted out - I don't know what software they use.

2) staff and training. If a staff member has used X software for say 10 years and is 'slower' on the take up IT wise (hired for technical ability more so) it can't be expected that they adapt overnight. Time is money etc.

 

For actual architectural design, great, use Revit. For other discipline related design Revit doesn't have the capacity/tools required to do the job (perhaps Revit Mep does I don't know). Why would those disciplines then adopt Revit as what in essence would be a pure drafting and collaboration tool and increase their workload?

 

I have yet to receive Revit files from a company where, from what I can tell, they used Revit correctly. I know you are very knowledgeable in it, there's no doubt. But I know a lot of people that have had it for years and don't even know what you're talking about.

 

I work with a lot of external architects also and not once have I ever been sent a Revit file. It is all AutoCad and the odd time Microstation.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to argue back, either. It's just when people like Organic get in here and post "it's not possible" then I have to speak up when I know this is a false statement. Of course he's correct if everyone's using AutoCAD - my point was to refute the not "possible idea", only with another design tool.

 

I still don't think it's realistic without a lot of compromise by different disciplines. Sure, in house we could unify drafting standards and job presentation absolutely although what works for the architects often doesn't work for the electrical engineers etc. I really don't see how any other software package changes this.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to argue either

[RobDraw]

Consistency within a multi-discipline firm is very possible with a good set of standards and proper training. I am the only trained/practicing drafter on a team of engineers and designers. We strive for as much consistency as possible between disciplines. The key is to get everyone to know that there is a common goal that can easily be achieved. As the drafter, I realize that our drawings are the way that we present our product, the design. That is our signature, so to speak and I have impressed that upon my team. This is not to say that we are perfect but in general we are pretty good. Plans are usually lined up from floor to floor and across trades. Key notes and drawing notes use the same symbols and placed in the same general area. Legends and general notes presented the same. Details and schedules arranged similarly. I still have to give every sheet a once over for consistency before they go out and usually have only minor adjustments to make. My point is that everyone knows the common goal before they start. Our drawings look like they all came from the same company even if you take away the title block.

 

BTW, Revit drawings can be messed up just as bad as they can be with AutoCAD. I've been involved with a couple projects that got way out of hand because everyone was off doing their own thing.

[jmerch]

I work with a lot of external architects also and not once have I ever been sent a Revit file. It is all AutoCad and the odd time Microstation.

 

I'm more referring to the engineering drawings. 3D arch is ok to have but not a necessity for us. We've gotten them on a couple jobs b/c I fight for them. I can use a 2D file if needed. I find it funny that in this day and age, the firm's salespeople go around touting "BIM" and sharing information but yet the arch won't even share their files with their engineer thus defeating a lot of the purpose.

 

If I know the design was done in Revit, we will request that file. But in most cases, trying to filter out systems, etc. is useless b/c the drafter that did it, put everything on one system similar to putting everything on one layer in ACAD.

[tzframpton]

For other discipline related design Revit doesn't have the capacity/tools required to do the job (perhaps Revit Mep does I don't know).

Okay this is where I draw the line. This is such a false statement. Revit is more than capable for all disciplines, and for your information Revit MEP is the most lacking of all three, not RAC or RST.

 

Here's a 95% Design Submittal of a job I'm currently the CAD Coordinator and lead designer on. This set was produced 100% using Revit Structure only and I have to ask you: Does this set seem like Revit is "lacking"?

Link (adjusted so TB info removed): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4989089/Ponhpei-Structural-PICS.pdf

 

Why would those disciplines then adopt Revit as what in essence would be a pure drafting and collaboration tool and increase their workload?

I'm not sure I completely understand your statement here but I will try and answer as best I can. First, Revit is not a pure drafting CAD program. I don't know when people who claim to know and understand Revit are going to comprehend this.

 

You ask why disciplines would adopt Revit? Because of many, many reasons. Too much to go on and on about, plus I think you've already made up your mind about Revit anyways. That it's "lacking".

 

I will say this, when a firm starts adopting Revit, things do take longer. Why? Because Revit will catch even the most minor of discrepancies in your design, forcing you to rethink or redesign certain things - especially when it comes to coordination.

 

The PDF I linked above proved this to us. Every section or detail is generated directly from the model and we saw interference's and other discrepancies that we never would have caught in a 2D AutoCAD world. This saved a ton of initial design flaws and money from change orders later and we know the construction of this building will be astronomically less painful once CD's are released, thanks to a "lacking" CAD program. Now that we're gaining more competence as a group of Revit designers, the time it takes to turn around a job is decreasing back to normal as each job closes. However, our mistakes and errors have basically been eliminated.

 

As the drafter, I realize that our drawings are the way that we present our product, the design. That is our signature, so to speak and I have impressed that upon my team.

I like this statement and I agree with it. At my company we strive for this and we do a good job at it. Mainly because the design team all have a passion for drawings and plan sets to be consistent and look good from page to page.

 

[Pablo Ferral]

I'm absolutely convinced that your CAD software should not be a barrier to you producing great drawings. Sadly, more and more people are learning 'CAD' without ever learning about Technical Drawing. People can create some pretty crappy drawings using really expensive software if they don't have basic skills such as lineweights or laying up drawings.

 

IMHO our CAD software is a tool. What software we use to create our drawings shouldn't be in question, if the drawings do their job - on time and on budget.

[Mike_Taylor]

I will say this, when a firm starts adopting Revit, things do take longer. Why? Because Revit will catch even the most minor of discrepancies in your design, forcing you to rethink or redesign certain things - especially when it comes to coordination.

 

The PDF I linked above proved this to us. Every section or detail is generated directly from the model and we saw interference's and other discrepancies that we never would have caught in a 2D AutoCAD world. This saved a ton of initial design flaws and money from change orders later and we know the construction of this building will be astronomically less painful once CD's are released, thanks to a "lacking" CAD program. Now that we're gaining more competence as a group of Revit designers, the time it takes to turn around a job is decreasing back to normal as each job closes. However, our mistakes and errors have basically been eliminated.

 

 

Our engineering firm is investing into Revit. As a Canadian firm, revir has not taken the same foothold here as it has south of the border. We have researched enough that our pay off for the initial jobs we do will be much less, but we see the potential Revit can bring to our company with proper training and standards implemented. We are investing for the future, not the long run with Revit.

 

And as mentioned, there has to be a synergy between the software and the designer/engineer. Both these come hand in hand.

 

I do not do reviews myself (or ant many at least), but I do know what poeple look for:

• Consistency - not jsut in a single package, but from project to project
  
• Accuracy - You can have as much content as you want on a drawing, but if it is not accurate it may as well not be there.
  
• Content - As mcuh conent as possible. Our philosophy is that if a contractor has to phone and ask a question, we need to improve. We look back at the job and change our future standards and design as required.
  
• General Look - Although it takes us more time, we prefer to have a unique look to our drawings. Where possible use SPLINE leaders, nice looking details etc. As mentioned above, we realize the way we present our drawings is the way we present oursleves to our clients and we want to stand out.
  

[tzframpton]

• Consistency - not jsut in a single package, but from project to project
  
• Accuracy - You can have as much content as you want on a drawing, but if it is not accurate it may as well not be there.
  
• Content - As mcuh conent as possible. Our philosophy is that if a contractor has to phone and ask a question, we need to improve. We look back at the job and change our future standards and design as required.
  
• General Look - Although it takes us more time, we prefer to have a unique look to our drawings. Where possible use SPLINE leaders, nice looking details etc. As mentioned above, we realize the way we present our drawings is the way we present oursleves to our clients and we want to stand out.
  

Mr. Taylor, I like the way you think. All great points right there.

[jmerch]

[*]Accuracy - You can have as much content as you want on a drawing, but if it is not accurate it may as well not be there.

[*]Content - As mcuh conent as possible. Our philosophy is that if a contractor has to phone and ask a question, we need to improve. We look back at the job and change our future standards and design as required.

 

Good philosophies

[nukecad]

I'm absolutely convinced that your CAD software should not be a barrier to you producing great drawings. Sadly, more and more people are learning 'CAD' without ever learning about Technical Drawing. People can create some pretty crappy drawings using really expensive software if they don't have basic skills such as lineweights or laying up drawings.

 

IMHO our CAD software is a tool. What software we use to create our drawings shouldn't be in question, if the drawings do their job - on time and on budget.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I think that all CAD courses should start with a month or two of manual drawing, pencil and paper, to teach the basics of laying out your drawings before you start. (You cant just move a view on the paper if you need more space).

 

 

My other bugbear is people who learn how to use basic cad and then expect to be able to work as engineers, even though they do not have the knowledge.

[RobDraw]

Content - As mcuh conent as possible. Our philosophy is that if a contractor has to phone and ask a question, we need to improve. We look back at the job and change our future standards and design as required.

 

There also is such a thing as too much content. The boss at my first drafting job used to say that he wanted to see "more white" on the sheets and to assume that everyone reading the plans was an idiot and that too much information can confuse them. Keep in mind that these were his employees that were reading the plans.

 

Sometimes less is more. Yes, you do need to convey the details needed to build whatever it is but at the same time not put too much detail as to muddy the drawings. It's a somewhat gray area where to draw the line at when you have too much but it is important to keep in mind.

[jmerch]

There also is such a thing as too much content. The boss at my first drafting job used to say that he wanted to see "more white" on the sheets and to assume that everyone reading the plans was an idiot and that too much information can confuse them. Keep in mind that these were his employees that were reading the plans.

 

Sometimes less is more. Yes, you do need to convey the details needed to build whatever it is but at the same time not put too much detail as to muddy the drawings. It's a somewhat gray area where to draw the line at when you have too much but it is important to keep in mind.

 

I guess that's an "eye of the beholder" thing. I'd much rather filter through the information myself and decide what's important for us rather than not having it and having to ask the question which takes 2 weeks to answer. If there's too much information and there's a discrepancy, that goes back to being accurate.

[tzframpton]

I come from contracting and most would not say too much content is not necessary. Their moto is "you can never have too much information on a set of plans". It really helps them out in the longrun to piece apart and rebuild a set of plans, obviously as long as everything is accurate. They might not use all the info, but it's better to have it there.

[RobDraw]

I understand what you are saying but it actually does go beyond how it looks. Drawings can be over dimensioned or have the same information called out in multiple places or trying to get details into a large scale plan that really should be shown at a smaller scale or something like this...

 

Over Detailed.pdf

[tzframpton]

Good statement Rob and point taken. I do agree.

[Mike_Taylor]

There also is such a thing as too much content. The boss at my first drafting job used to say that he wanted to see "more white" on the sheets and to assume that everyone reading the plans was an idiot and that too much information can confuse them. Keep in mind that these were his employees that were reading the plans.

 

Sometimes less is more. Yes, you do need to convey the details needed to build whatever it is but at the same time not put too much detail as to muddy the drawings. It's a somewhat gray area where to draw the line at when you have too much but it is important to keep in mind.

 

I agree, the more information you have the higher the chance conflicts will arise, but if the information is accurate this should never occur.

 

Our project manager here does a fantastic job of combing through drawings and fining discrepancies. He worked as a contractor, bumped up to project facilitator for a contracting company, and now reviews all our drawings and oversees all our projects.

 

The other thing we do to reduce this is that we break or notes and details into sections:

• General notes that are applicable with every job (requiring F/A test letters etc.)
  
• Job specific notes ( which are merged with our notes for specific companies types of stores (notes specific to all checkouts for a grocery store for example).
  
• Specifications - A long list of specifications we go through as often as necessary with or Electrical Code consultant to ensure everything adds up. We also specify items that are approved by the code, but our consultant feels is not acceptable.
  

Our specifications indicate that any specific item listed in our general notes is to supercede any item listed in our specs. If conflicts arise (and occasionally they do with 3-5 D sized sheets of specs) we essentially say, use the item listed in the notes. Saves us time having to comb through all those specs to modify an item because the client asked for it specifically.