PDFs are not DWGs

George Matica, post: 322532, member: 6663 wrote:
Are you seeing this reluctance to provide DWGs more these days? Would you consider the "electronic format" referred to above as DWG or would PDF be acceptable?

No, not really. I get CAD files 99% of the time.

I have found that the Engineers whom do resist sending CAD files, often have something to hide. The more the they resist, the worse the CAD files are when we get them. I developed a term for poor engineering CAD files, that have multiple Xref's merged together, with hundreds of layers.

It is a "bastard-iized cad file"

We tell client we must have PDF's and the CAD files, DWG or DGN.

I have seen the same thing, sometimes the engineer is so disconnected to the job that you can't even contact them.

If I get a bid package that references one of the online sets of PDF's that take forever to deal with I just move on, I already know where it's heading.

But usually I will get the cad file and know what the coordinate system is

If the engineer is not going to send me a CAD file, he dang well better have a set of plans good enough to layout without me having to do my own site design. This nonsense of showing a building and parking lot with no dimensions of the items, and no distances from the property lines isn't going to cut it.

I've always been somewhat reluctant to turn over CAD files for fear they could be altered too easily. But in the past year, I've had two different architects alter my plans after giving them digitally signed encrypted PDFs, which they simply printed on paper and hand edited, leaving my title block and seal in place.

With those that I have given CAD files (stripped of title blocks and field data), there have been no problems whatsoever.

So now I worry about giving out PDFs.

Sometimes I worry that I worry too much...

Gromaticus, post: 322573, member: 597 wrote: I've always been somewhat reluctant to turn over CAD files for fear they could be altered too easily. But in the past year, I've had two different architects alter my plans after giving them digitally signed encrypted PDFs, which they simply printed on paper and hand edited, leaving my title block and seal in place.

With those that I have given CAD files (stripped of title blocks and field data), there have been no problems whatsoever.

So now I worry about giving out PDFs.

Sometimes I worry that I worry too much...

The proper way for engineers and architects to operate is to xref in our survey.

One thing that I have noticed about that is many engineers and architects aren't smart enough to do that.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you.

I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

Most of our work is in construction (production housing). We always request the developer provide dwg’s of the construction plans as well as the plat. Some engineers/surveyors balk at the request but comply, however the majority have no problem sending the requested data.

The entities which balk at these “absurd” requests make me wonder why the reluctance to share, hell by the time construction begins everything is available from county records.

What say you?

Have a great week! B-)

Electronic files always have the disclaimer that the paper document is the only official document. sarcasm(If the paper document was adequate, I wouldn't need a CAD file, WOULD I?)sarcasm off.

I can't find the sarcasm font either.

vern, post: 322602, member: 3436 wrote: Electronic files always have the disclaimer that the paper document is the only official document. [sarcasm](If the paper document was adequate, I wouldn't need a CAD file, WOULD I?)[/sarcasm]

Fixed it - just put brackets around 'sarcasm', and a forward slash before the last one.

vern, post: 322602, member: 3436 wrote: Electronic files always have the disclaimer that the paper document is the only official document. sarcasm(If the paper document was adequate, I wouldn't need a CAD file, WOULD I?)sarcasm off.

I can't find the sarcasm font either.

No sarcasm font? No sarcasm font? I have no need to panic, I will simply use underlined italics with bold until one becomes available.

spledeus, post: 322622, member: 3579 wrote: No sarcasm font? No sarcasm font? I have no need to panic, I will simply use underlined italics with bold until one becomes available.

[sarcasm] here is the sarcasm font. [/sarcasm] You actually have to type in your text here to get it to work. but replace the "" with "[ and ]" . the "/" is an off switch.

George Matica, post: 322532, member: 6663 wrote: Technical specs for recent construction project include the typical statement...

"At the Pre-
construction Meeting, the Contractor will be provided with an electronic format of the project, to assist in layout of the work."

Engineer of Record furnishes CD with PDF of Bid Set Plans.

Besides the fact special provisions in the specs also call for asbuilts submitted as...
"two (2) complete sets of printed
as-built" construction plans showing all field measured elevations and dimensions of the completed system including ground elevations, underground piping, conduit and structures, as well as one set of electronic plans in a format compatible with AutoCADD 2010 format."

This atypical engineer insists on not providing DWGs of the design.

Are you seeing this reluctance to provide DWGs more these days? Would you consider the "electronic format" referred to above as DWG or would PDF be acceptable?

Seems like more and more

George Matica, post: 322532, member: 6663 wrote: Technical specs for recent construction project include the typical statement...

"At the Pre-
construction Meeting, the Contractor will be provided with an electronic format of the project, to assist in layout of the work."

Engineer of Record furnishes CD with PDF of Bid Set Plans.

Besides the fact special provisions in the specs also call for asbuilts submitted as...
"two (2) complete sets of printed
as-built" construction plans showing all field measured elevations and dimensions of the completed system including ground elevations, underground piping, conduit and structures, as well as one set of electronic plans in a format compatible with AutoCADD 2010 format."

This atypical engineer insists on not providing DWGs of the design.

Are you seeing this reluctance to provide DWGs more these days? Would you consider the "electronic format" referred to above as DWG or would PDF be acceptable?

What I'm seeing more and more is architects who don't use topo, draw their design at 0,0. Then when you get it it takes days to explain to them that it doesnt match existing and is rotated 23 degrees from the real world and does not match the structural dimensions. Use the topo. Convert your Revit. Use the control. Makes it a lot easier on owner contractor and surveyor.