Maybe soneone can explain this.........

Maybe someone can explain to me why architects are always scaling drawings
up. I don't think I ever received a drawings that was NOT scaled.

I send original to them, they add what they need to and I get it back all
screwed up.

The biggest thing is that when the drawing was scaled, 0,0,0 was not used
as the base point. This is not the case all of the time. But, in this case
it is driving me crazy.



I guess I just needed to vent a little.

Thanks,

Howard

 

I would guess you do civil? To use your drawing created in units, they need
to scale up by 12. You should be able to specify a scale point to ease
coordination between trades. Charge them for time if it is a big issue.

Matt

 

Architects don't "always scale drawings up"; in the US, they simply use
inches as their base unit. I'm guessing you're in a discipline that uses
feet as the base unit. If you're exchanging drawings with architects, it's
reasonable to expect drawings that *they* originate to be in inches, in
which case, you'll have to scale them down by 1:12 to work on them, then you
should scale them back up before returning them. When you send an architect
that *you* originate, it's reasonable to ask them to return it to you at the
original scale and origin; if they don't then you should simply tell them
about the problem, and decide how much to add to your fee for scaling and
resetting the origin.
___

 

Hey guys, sorry for the stupid question, but I think in model space we are
drawing 1:1 (1ft is 1ft etc.). So why you should scale the drawing? 1ft is 1
ft, no matter how you represent it - as 1'-0", 12", 1.0000... If you don't
like the units used by the company created the drawing - change it. Use your
own dim styles to represent the dimensions in the form you like. But NO
SCALING IN MODEL SPACE! Paper space is for scaling. In Model Space all
should be drawn in real sizes. If you stick to this simple (but basic) rule,
you will newer need to be "drive crazy".
Again - sorry if my post sound stupid to somebody, but maybe I don't
completely understand the problem, or I understand it incorrect way.
John

 

If you use Architectural units 1 unit = 1 inch, not 1 foot. If that doesn't
sink in then change the units in one of drawings to Architectural and try to
work.

--


Rick Moore
Barnes Gromatzky Kosarek Architects
www.bgkarchitects.com

 

Not true. In the US, architects and machine designers (to name a couple) use
INCHES as the base unit in AutoCAD. Civil engineers use feet. In other parts
of the world, different disciplines may be using meters, centimeters, or
millimeters as the base unit. The notion of 1:1 *can* mean "1 unit = 1
foot," but it can also mean "1 unit = 1 inch" or "1 unit = 1 mm," etc.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the whole world uses AutoCAD exactly
as you do.
___

 

Hi Paul,
Some good points but talk about nickel-and-diming consultants.
It hardly takes a minute for a decent CAD jockey to adjust
everything back to your scale if you recognize what's happening.
I would be embarrassed to complain about such coordination
problems.

Regards,
Doug

 

That's why I used the phrase "decide how much..." -- you and many others of
us would probably decide on *nothing*.

I guess it just depends on how far one wishes to go in extending common
courtesy. Also, scaling with reference to 0,0 is one thing; using a non-0,0
reference point is another.
___

 

Good point. It'd be nice to have a non-plotting target indicator for
those cases where the scale factor is about something besides 0,0.

Instead of changing the consultants drawings, I prefer to xattach
them and scale the xref rather than the original drawing. I mean
if somebody else is responsible for a drawing I'd rather not mess
with it, just reference it, whenever possible.

The ones that throw me are those who use the scale command
on details (not blocks) and change the dimscale factor for those
dimensions or (shudder) explode the dimensions. Now that is
the kind of mess that might be billable to fix. ;-)

Regards,
Doug

 

It's not always that simple. If you're using a vertical produce like LDT
scaling some entities may confuse the program. I think the issue here is
coordination. People need to talk about how drawing are going to be sent
back and fourth. Attaching drawings as an Xref and then scaling if a good
practice. But then you have to talk about layers so you can turn off what
you don't need in the xref. The only thing that should make the round trip
should be whatever the other party had contributed to the project. Not the
original files in an altered state. I would never edit an Architects drawing
and send it back to him to work with unless that was specifically what was
asked for.

Working together on a small residential project takes only a small amount of
time to coordinate. Working on a large commercial or DOT project can take
days just to set up the ground rules for drawing creation and exchange. But
it is all worth it in the end.

Allen Jessup

 

Guys,
Your right that any decent CAD jockey can adjust things back. I've had to do
this
on atleast 5or 6 occasions in the last few months.My point is that I
SHOULDN'T have to.
I would never change anybodys drawings. I add what I have to and send it
back.
I talked to the architects about this. He tells me that 0,0,0 is to far from
the job and it creates regen
problems in ACAD. He says he realizes that it created a problem. But he did
anyway and didn't bother
fixing it or telling me about it before he sent it back to me.

 

Howard,

He should have fixed it for sure. Do you mind telling
me what type of info you guys are trading back and
forth? Is it architectural to surveying? Solutions are
always easier to find if the specifics are known.

Example:
Many surveyors are using extremely large coordinates
to align with state plane coordinate systems. This causes
havoc with architectural hatches unless a local coordinate
system is set up or the surveying objects moved so that
a corner of the property or building is at 0,0.

Allen's point about about scaling ADT objects is very
valid also.

Regards,
Doug

 

Actually that was LDT. I'm on the Civil/Survey side of the gap.

Allen

 

Doug,

Survey is involved. We have designed the site and the Architects are
designing the buildings. The footprints of the buildings seem to change
every week
or two. Then the developer makes changes. Its one big mess.

 

If you're designing the site just have the Architect send you the building
footprints. Then drop them on your site plan. (After scaling by 1/12 of
course) They don't need to be fooling around with your drawings.

The Architects around here almost never get involved in site work. They just
sent us building plans. We site them. If there is a problem with setbacks or
grading we tell the client what changes have to be made to the building.

Allen

 

Guess I'm with John on this one, if you send me a drawing in model space
drawn actual size, dimensioned in mm, I can change the dimension style
to Architectural and the dimensions are still correct. I don't understand
scaling drawings in model space.

 

Guess I'm with John on this one, if you send me a drawing in model space

I thought Paul was pretty clear. Acad uses "units" which have no predefined
meaning whatsoever -- except in the case of "architectural" units in which
the units are taken to be inches. But the civil/surveying trades use feet as
units. If a surveyor draws a line 5.5 "units" long, he takes it as meaning
5.5 feet. But if you change the units to architectural and measure it,
you'll find that it's 5.5 inches long. The surveyor thinks he is drawing
actual size, because of the (arbitrary) meaning that he gives the units. But
architectural dimensioning enforces a different interpretation of the units.
In order to an architect to work with this drawing effectively, the easiest
way is to scale it up by 12, to get from unit feet to unit inches.

As long as the "units" are decimal rather than architectural, you're free to
assume any unit you want. You can draw "actual size" in cubits, parsecs, or
microns. And you won't be able use architectural dimensions on any of those
correctly simply by changing the dimension style. "Architectural" isn't
fundamentally a dimension style, it's a type of unit.

Why not try the exact test you posed? Start a metric drawing, draw a box 100
x 100 and dimension it. Assume the units are mm. Change the dimstyle to
architectural unit format, and see if you think the result is "still
correct." Is 100 mm the same as 8'-4"?

 

units.
<snip>

Maybe not so arbitrary. You'll never get GPS to work in inches. <g>

I never think I'm drawing "Actual size". I'm drawing at a scale that is
appropriate for my work. Architects could draw in decimal feet but I don't
think there are may carpenters or masons out there that would understand the
plans. Although I know a few.

There is no problem with working in different drawing units as long as
everyone is on the same page. Scaling original drawings that are going to be
returned to the originator is a No No. The drawings should be inserted as an
xref and then scaled. If you need to be able to turn off or on certain
elements of the drawing to do your work TELL the person doing the work.
Arrange so that the drawing can be delivered that way. Don't make changes to
the originals unless this has been discussed with the other party first.

The difference in scales between Architects and Civil/Survey could have been
avoided when Acad was originally written. If they had said for Architectural
work we will have the system report 1 foot for every unit and one inch for
every 0.08333 units the drawings would be interchangeable with no scaling.

Just one of my pet peeves.

Allen