Proper Way To String Dimensions....

[maratovich]

Yeah, I stopped reading at this line.

All standards come up for a long time and they are right, so they change no one will.

The main thing that everyone will understand the same.

Or will you change your files when you change computers?

[ReMark]

maratovich: "In our country, one standard for all."

 

What happens if someone doesn't follow the standard? Are they sent to the gulag for re-education?

[Dana W]

All standards come up for a long time and they are right, so they change no one will.

The main thing that everyone will understand the same.

Or will you change your files when you change computers?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44815[/ATTACH]

Just because your "standards" are required to be adhered to does not make them right, it just makes the useless and cumbersome parts of them unavoidable.

 

There has been an industry wide, international agreement universally applied to computer file formats out of mechanical necessity, in order to make them work on any computer in the world. Your comparison to computer files is so broad it almost sounds petulant.

 

The word standard of itself implies the existence of options.

 

What you are saying then, is that the book of standards you linked to is actually a book of requirements.

 

We have no need of a national set of drafting requirements here. In fact the very thought of such a document is a bit foreboding.

[Dana W]

Since the OP has not posted a second time out of 22 posts, I am going to go play elsewhere.

[tzframpton]

Enforcing standards has inherently good and bad results. It does create uniformity and mitigates complications, but it also is restrictive in nature, not allowing for creative output and discovery. We wouldn't have awesome programs such as Inventor or Revit if AutoCAD became the "one and only standard". "Standards" originate from a committee of humans, and humans have an emotional attachment to anything they're involved in. Standards are true only if mutually agreed upon by the committee which are speaking for all.

 

Do I like Standards? You betcha. Do I like Standards being enforced by a private company as their own policy? Absolutely. Do I like Standards being enforced to an entire country by governmental law or rule? Hmmm.... that's where I'll draw the line.

 

[Dana W]

Do I like Standards? You betcha. Do I like Standards being enforced by a private company as their own policy? Absolutely. Do I like Standards being enforced to an entire country by governmental law or rule? Hmmm.... that's where I'll draw the line.

 

Plus 1 to that. I agree with the first part that I didn't quote as well.

[Organic]

Enforcing standards has inherently good and bad results. It does create uniformity and mitigates complications, but it also is restrictive in nature, not allowing for creative output and discovery. We wouldn't have awesome programs such as Inventor or Revit if AutoCAD became the "one and only standard".

 

If Revit, Inventor or any other program cannot comply with standards used in a particular country, then that program should not be used in that country. Simple.

[nestly]

If Revit, Inventor or any other program cannot comply with standards used in a particular country, then that program should not be used in that country. Simple.

 

Isn't that just a bit over the top... (and by over the top, I mean completely facetious)

[Organic]

Isn't that just a bit over the top... (and by over the top, I mean completely facetious)

 

No. No software program should try to dictate to an industry or country that it must change its standards. The software either complies with the existing standards or it isn't used (or if used requires cleanup afterwards in AutoCad etc to make the plans compliant).

[nestly]

Give me an example where Revit or Inventor cannot comply with a particular standard. If you can't, then I suggest you have a motive other than contributing useful information to this topic.

[tzframpton]

The software either complies with the existing standards or it isn't used.....

If a software developer creates a program that that is in all ways better than the current industry standard, how would you suggest enforcing such "standards" on an industry? And why do you have an oppressive outlook on advancement of industry and economics?

 

AutoCAD v1.0 couldn't provide industry standard drawings when compared to hand drafting, but it eventually adopted what the industry needed and created a need for new industry standards in the process.

 

My apologies in advance as I'm not trying to provoke, but it's just hard for me to understand why anybody would promote and even allow a dictatorial opinion for an entire industry, especially one that is to be of free enterprise.

[Organic]

Give me an example where Revit or Inventor cannot comply with a particular standard. If you can't, then I suggest you have a motive other than contributing useful information to this topic.

 

I'm not familiar with Inventor so can't discuss it. I said IF Revit, Inventor or any other program cannot perform as required then it shouldn't be used.

 

As for Revit, we try it each year and have never made the switch. I'll post a response for Revit on Monday/Tuesday after speaking with a colleague of mine who evaluates it each year and knows the architectural aspects of it better. I am more interested in the structural capabilities of it rather than the architectural or MEP capabilities.

 

I am most familiar with AutoCad Civil 3D and other civil programs and am happy to discuss the shortcomings (and merits) and inability to meet some locality standards in another thread if you also have knowledge of Civil 3D?

 

If you can't, then I suggest you have a motive other than contributing useful information to this topic.

 

I don't have any underlying motive, although if you think I do then please spell it out for me as I am not following where you are going with that. I don't work for Microstation etc...

 

Feel free to move these posts to a new thread if you want as it might be better to continue the discussion in a new thread

[Organic]

If a software developer creates a program that that is in all ways better than the current industry standard, how would you suggest enforcing such "standards" on an industry?

 

A software company should not be trying to enforce and change industry standards. It is not their place to do so. The standards must be left up to professional, practicing industry professionals. The software should aid them in adhering to the required standards, not hinder them.

 

And why do you have an oppressive outlook on advancement of industry and economics?

 

I have no problem with industries advancing, however just because there is 'new' software available does not mean it will be taken up by industry. Civil 3D is a classic example of this in my locality. It was heralded as a messiah and a new way for design and was fairly widely taken up 5 years ago (including by me). Now-a-days there are almost no jobs for those who know Civil 3D and for companies still using Civil 3D it is near impossible to hire anyone who has experience with Civil 3D and wants to use it. I've posted about this issue before where in the end as a company we still use Civil 3D for legacy projects requiring it although shifted back to the (updated version of the) software we used prior to adopting Civil 3D so we could attract staff. A lot of companies have done this also.

 

I know Civil 3D dominates in the US although I am talking about my experience outside of the US.

 

AutoCAD v1.0 couldn't provide industry standard drawings when compared to hand drafting, but it eventually adopted what the industry needed and created a need for new industry standards in the process.

 

I never used AutoCad 1.0 so cannot comment on it specifically, although if it couldn't meet the standards requirement, then CAD shouldn't have been adotped until a CAD program could meet them. The key word in your quote is EVENTUALLY. I would elaborate on that and say that companies should only adopt software once it EVENTUALLY complies 100% and has proven itself through sustained industry use.

[tzframpton]

As for Revit, we try it each year and have never made the switch. I'll post a response for Revit on Monday/Tuesday after speaking with a colleague of mine who evaluates it each year and knows the architectural aspects of it better. I am more interested in the structural capabilities of it rather than the architectural or MEP capabilities.

I work for a civil engineering firm. My division is Facilities Engineering, which is primarily MEP/S and we provide about 10-15% of the overall production of our company. Granted, we are the most profitable division because of the inherent nature of the type of work we do, and we do a lot of work outside of public money. Having said that, my division uses Revit 90% of the time and I'm very familiar with civil the department trying to use Revit, since I am one of only two people who is positioned as a main point of contact for our entire company when it comes to support with Revit. The main items of Revit that are of interest to civil engineers and designers are two things: structural and piping. I've told them time and time again.... you're using Revit in a manner it was not intended. Revit is intended for vertical work, not horizontal work. But it's being pushed by superiors to at least try it, so they are moving forward.

 

I've seen you on this forum on numerous occasions give negative feedback regarding Revit, when you openly admit you do not use it in a daily production environment, nor are you in the discipline to be able to utilize even a fraction of what Revit offers. Revit is not for civil engineering, period. This is the last time I'm going to make this statement - Revit does not advertise to be a platform that the civil market can use and I really wish you would retract your opinions from this platform.

 

A software company should not be trying to enforce and change industry standards. It is not their place to do so.

I have to humbly disagree with this statement and I believe your view on how this fundamentally works is flawed. Let me try and illustrate why my view differs from yours: A software company cannot enforce their software onto a particular industry. They simply present their software onto a particular industry. Speaking specifically in the engineering and design industry, all companies (at least, in the USA) are free to choose what they use as their tool for documenting their design. When programs such as Inventor and Revit emerge on the scene, touting their benefits, it's the end company's choice to decide for themselves if the investment is worth it. Usually, the reason decisions such as this happen is because newer technology offers an advantage to what's currently in the marketplace. Thus, the advancement and transition of "standards" (both in procedure and output) will happen, and should happen.

 

The standards must be left up to professional, practicing industry professionals. The software should aid them in adhering to the required standards, not hinder them.

Standards should always be up for scrutiny, so as long as the motivation behind the review is legitimate. "Standards" should never be sealed by "law" never allowed to be discussed; they should always be subject to audit. This reason alone is what allows and even promotes software companies, engineering companies and recipients of engineering services to have better and more efficient products.

 

I have no problem with industries advancing, however just because there is 'new' software available does not mean it will be taken up by industry.

I agree with this, but again it's up to the company's free choice to decide what's right for them; both companies that produce designs, and receive designs. Sometimes a building owner can say "I want you to use Revit on this job instead of the industry standard AutoCAD." So this can go both ways.

 

I never used AutoCad 1.0 so cannot comment on it specifically, although if it couldn't meet the standards requirement, then CAD shouldn't have been adopted until a CAD program could meet them.

Again, this view is fundamentally flawed because you have to first use the software to discover the downfalls and to have epiphanies on how it could be better developed in future releases. The point you've made, is that you must create a software package to a certain level of "completeness" before you release it into the marketplace. This is true to an extent, but you can't expect to hit a home run on your first ever at bat in the major leagues. It's not impossible, but it's not realistic. AutoCAD has been in development for over 30 years. Revit, for over 14 years. Inventor, couldn't tell you but I'm sure it's been a while now.

 

Locking down free-thinking development hinders advancements, not the other way around. There must always be incentives for things to develop and change. I remember my first true experience of this back when I was 24 years old. Three months into my job I told my boss I think I have an idea on how to make something better and he stopped me mid-sentence and said (paraphrasing), "Tannar, let me explain something to you. This is your ballgame. Although we have a particular way of doing things, if you want to try something that will benefit the company then that's what I want you to do. It'll always have to be reviewed and approved by me, but I want you to own your role and you are free to try things out that will benefit us all." That was the very first time in my life I was encouraged, not just "granted permission", to go above and beyond "standards". At that very moment is when my career started because of a very understanding boss who helped me find my true potential. Had he said "It better be exactly like it is now" then I would have never ventured off into new territories.

 

My humble and rather long $0.02, haha.

[FLTLC]

Since the OP has not posted a second time out of 22 posts, I am going to go play elsewhere.

 

Whoa! Thanks for all the input! Sorry for not replying, but I just got back from weekend hike and saw all the replies! Seems there is still a lot of debate with this. My drafting dept is trying to come up with certain company standards and this topic is a debate within the department. I just wanted to see what others thought. I appreciate all the replies!

[Organic]

The main items of Revit that are of interest to civil engineers and designers are two things: structural and piping. I've told them time and time again.... you're using Revit in a manner it was not intended. Revit is intended for vertical work, not horizontal work. But it's being pushed by superiors to at least try it, so they are moving forward.

 

It is for both horizontal and vertical.

 

you openly admit you do not use it in a daily production environment

 

We've evaluated it numerous times and found it to be inferior to other products we use. Given a lot of our clients don't use it either, there really is no point using it as we then have to build the model from scratch.

 

nor are you in the discipline to be able to utilize even a fraction of what Revit offers. Revit is not for civil engineering, period. This is the last time I'm going to make this statement - Revit does not advertise to be a platform that the civil market can use and I really wish you would retract your opinions from this platform.

 

Structural engineering IS a sub discipline of civil engineering. I'm not retracting my opinion on what I believe to be overhyped software that looks pretty although is technically years behind other software packages.

[Organic]

I have to humbly disagree with this statement and I believe your view on how this fundamentally works is flawed. Let me try and illustrate why my view differs from yours: A software company cannot enforce their software onto a particular industry. They simply present their software onto a particular industry. Speaking specifically in the engineering and design industry, all companies (at least, in the USA) are free to choose what they use as their tool for documenting their design. When programs such as Inventor and Revit emerge on the scene, touting their benefits, it's the end company's choice to decide for themselves if the investment is worth it. Usually, the reason decisions such as this happen is because newer technology offers an advantage to what's currently in the marketplace.

 

Yes, I agree with all of this.

 

Thus, the advancement and transition of "standards" (both in procedure and output) will happen, and should happen.

 

I don't care what software package someone uses although the output must comply with the standards of how it is supposed to look. If it doesn't (and the program can't do it) then it will need post processing work in AutoCad or similar to make it compliant. E.g. the firm I work for doesn't care what design package someone uses, we'll buy whatever one they want to use, although the output from all design packages must look the same, whether that is configured via the software package or post processed in AutoCad. There should be no noticeable difference between the final paper plans as to whether Paul using X software package, Nick using Y software package or Emma using Z software package etc produced the design and plans etc. At the end of the day it is the client who is paying and expects their plans to look like that - they couldn't care less what design software we done it in normally.

 

I agree with this, but again it's up to the company's free choice to decide what's right for them; both companies that produce designs, and receive designs. Sometimes a building owner can say "I want you to use Revit on this job instead of the industry standard AutoCAD." So this can go both ways.

 

We also get that all the time as part of our contract with clients although very rarely is Revit ever the requested software to use for structural jobs.

 

Locking down free-thinking development hinders advancements, not the other way around. There must always be incentives for things to develop and change.

 

Be careful what you wish for. The civil engineering land development industry in the US is example of this. Engineers never used to use CAD much and it was left up to designers and drafters. Now in the US with the advent of Civil 3D, a lot of engineers are running the program themselves and there are less drafters and designers employed given Civil 3D now automates a lot of the work required. I'm outside of the US and this hasn't been my personal experience yet although I'm sure it will occur here also at some stage (probably not with Civil 3D though).

 

The same can be said of Revit. It reduces the tedious drafting requirements, which reduces the number of drafters and designers employed...

[tzframpton]

My apologies in advance, but I have to disagree with everything you've posted. It's very clear that you do not have a full understanding of the Revit platform at all.

[Organic]

My apologies in advance, but I have to disagree with everything you've posted. It's very clear that you do not have a full understanding of the Revit platform at all.

 

 

I hope you do better trying to convince your future bosses than that pointless post.

[nestly]

 

I hope you do better trying to convince your future bosses than that pointless post.

 

Thanks for confirming that your motive for participating in this thread is merely to belittle and disparage Revit and anyone that realizes it's usefulness.