Black Background

But that is on a crt. On an LCD there are no guns, and most people are
switching to LCDS. In fact it is virtually impossible to buy a high
quality large screen CRT suitable for cad work.

 

Greg,

Too unfortunately most people agree with you.

I import ACAD drawings to make 3D surfaces & simplified linework for
construction layout. I'm interested in the model, not the paper.

What a pain in the ass all drawings I get are in some point or other.
I have never gotten one yet that had all the stuff on the right
layers. By that I mean one that was consistent. There's always a
piece of curb or 2 that is on a layer other than "curbs". There's a
HUGE difference in function of "edge-of-pavement" and "back-of-curb",
but most often they are all on the same layer.

I'll be happy when the legal requirement is updated to include a
correct model, not merely something that looks okay on paper.

BTW:

Light burns out eyeball tissue. Less light is better for less eye
fatigue/wear & tear. White background = light. Black background =
lack of light. I like black.

Melanie

 

but why do most cad people still use a black background?

Force of habit, or bad monitor settings. I have long used a white background
with refresh at 85 Hz and brightness turned down. I can work all day with no
eye strain or fatigue. The eyes can resolve detail much better and easier
with dark markings on a light background. Imagine reading all your printed
drawings with white or colored ink on black paper....

You are right, and arrows show the direction of every dimension, ticks do
not. However, even if done entirely on a computer, architects want to show
they are are practicing art, not engineering. Maybe some would prefer
arrows, but they risk the bad reaction of clients or other architects. But
if you get a drawing file made with ticks, you can change the dim style and
see arrowheads.

 

Melanie,

The statement of mine that you quoted was about the printed product. In
my original post, directly after the part you quoted, is where I mention
working with the cad file. The printed product and the cad file, as we
all know, are two totally different things.

It is disconcerting to hear a fellow cad operator disagree with the fact
that your printed product must be easy to follow. This is *basic* drafting.

As far as making the cad file easy to follow for other cad users, that
is *secondary* to the printed copy being easy to follow. The ability to
create a cad file that other cad users can follow easily *AND* have it
also easy to follow when printed is what separates a good cad user from
an excellent cad user... and this ability only comes with experience.

Greg

 

Thanks ; )

 

In a previous post Greg Young wrote...

Greg:

I think you missed the point. It is possible to have a high quality
printed product AND have the line work and layering be correct. It really
doesn't take any more time to do the job properly the first time if one is
paying attention.

Sloppy workmanship is sloppy workmanship no matter what the medium.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

 

I fully agree.

My point was that they are different. One could create an entire drawing
using one layer and still have an excellent quality print. That drawing
would be very difficult for another draftsman to manipulate, but it
still serves its basic function. That function being an easy to read print.

BTW, the above is playing devil's advocate, I would never create a
drawing that didn't serve its purpose to both the client and other
draftsmen.

The quality print is for the client. The quality cad file is for other
cad users. Understanding bath and implementing both into ones work is
crucial to ones job function as a cad draftsman.

True statement. I come across *way* too many people that could care less
about the quality of their work.

Greg

 

In a previous post Greg Young wrote...

Greg:

I am pleased to see we are on the same page as to what a quality product
is.

It shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp, but as you say, "Way" too
many people don't seem to care if they turn quality work or not.

Keep up the good work! Other drafters (and even some engineers <grin>)
will thank you for it.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

 

In a previous post Doug T wrote...

Doug:

Yes, it does take a few seconds more time to switch layers. If you have
your tool bars and layer names set up properly it only takes a few clicks
to make the switch. This would be somewhat akin to changing pencils if
you were drawing with pencil and paper.

In other words it doesn't take long and the final product will be much
better.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

 

And a trick to make it easier is to draw a filled rectangle as a block
on the sheet (could even be in your template) for each layer. then use
the select layer tool to switch to the desired layer. All you would have
to do is zoom all, select layer, zoom previous. You can set a script
with a pause or set quick-keys to do the zooms and select. When the
drawing is done, if the blocks are outside the viewports they don't get
plotted, or you can delete the blocks.

I'm glad that my little rant got a good discussion rolling.

 

Poorly phrased. If you have one arrow on the left side of the extension,
but none on the right side you will know that the left dimension ends at
this extension, but the right is overlapping the left, that you need to
adjust dimensions, and the string cannot be trusted.

example

-------->|<---------- is good

-------->|----------- is bad

---------|<---------- is bad

---------/----------- who knows

 

<removes his teeth for a moment, and gums himself for a bit before speaking
in a scratchy voice>

In the old days, the only way to tell if a dimension could be trusted was to
actually check the math. Arguing that arrows help you identify sloppy
drafting and checking is a point taken, but they also take up more room in a
tight string.

 

I agree about the tight strings. But if a string is that tight I will
switch to dots since on those strings even ticks are too big. Also the
problem is not really happening that often on tight strings but more
often is the result of the draftsperson zooming out and they have a
dimension already on the page to which the location of the new string
snaps. I have also seen it when a previous dimension string is selected
to continue and the start end orientation is not the same as what the
continue is doing. Usually pretty obvious, but when one of the
dimensions is relatively small and the other is relatively large, it can
easily be missed during checking, but if you routinely check arrowheads,
the problem almost is never missed.

If you use an open arrow head, the arrows look like dual ticks crossing
each other.

-----------X----------

 

<snip>

tis easier on the eyes...

In fact, I've had to replaced those marks with my own block, as the only way
I could figure to not plot variable length extention lines and still keep
the dims origins on their objects, is to make the extention lines a
non-printing colour [ 'white' pen,] which then renders the standard marks
'invisable' too...

 

what standards are PE's & SE's supporting these days, Bob?
:}

 

In a previous post R'zenboom wrote...

I don't use any nationally recognized standard. I looked at the AIA
standard, but find it almost incomprehensible. The other thing is some
clients have their own standard, so you set stuck using that one.

In my opinion any layering standard that names the layers clearly with a
name that defines the layer's relationship to the building, site or other
matter at hand will work just fine.

For a building you might have a group of layer that start with "G-" to
define layers that cover an entire building, then start go with "F-"
layers to convey foundation information, then "1-" layers and on up the
building until you get to "R-" layers for the roof.

My $0.02 worth anyway.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com