The very reason most smart contractors only recognize the paper set as contract documents.
The flip side of the problem is when someone emails a copy of their abomination and wants us to fix it and build it. When I was doing that type work, I refused to use someone's digitals and only worked from the paper copies. There is a clearly defined structure and chain of command to go through when an error is found on contract documents, not so with a digital rendering geared only to producing the paper set.
Sometimes that is all the cad operator is after, more typesetter and printer than computer tech. Sometimes they are very good, and are just as phobic about maintaining scale and dimensional integrity.
Well sure, if I was dealing with 8' high deer fence or off center dimples then dview twist would be called for but otherwise I don't think so.
FWIW - I do a lot of work with outside consultants on design teams and before the first line is drawn in CAD all the decisions about drawing orientation, scale, layering convention, etc. have already been determined so we don't have to go changing horses mid-stream.
Once again I've got to be contrary ....
OK - I understand your frustration!
But why is your format any more important than the architect's? If you prepared the CAD file knowing it was going to an architect why shouldn't you be expected to give it to him in his units? We live in 2 different worlds - that's just a fact of life.
As to the orientation, architects always want a "square building" square to the sheet of paper. That's the way they and builders look at it. They probably curse us because we insist on having North up regardless of the site.
We all have our own perspective and we have to deal with it.
Some of the other complaints noted above are indeed valid and the content of our work should not be changed. But orientation, scale, and units are flexible depending on the use.
I'm with you Jim. It sounds as if the original post left some potential billable work on the table.
Is TwistScreen really a problem for folks????
TwistScreen vs LDD
I have used TwistScreen since SurvCADD 10. All the required commands were alread in AutoCAD, Carlson organized their use in sensible choices.
It was simple Lisp back, open the Lisp file and voila you knew it was logical and not magical. I am unsure if was even a Carlson idea. I recall opening various Lisp files and see the creators byline within.
Meanwhile LDD continued to foist their drawing rotation on the unknowing or more likely the unwilling.
I subbed as an engineer for a few years in an engineering/surveying company that was 100% LDD for drafting. The surveyor partner used C&G then turned it over to the drafting department with the orders "Do Not Touch The Survey". I would use my laptop with Carlson Survey plugged into their server. When I started engineering work on one of their drawings Carlson always prompted me that the drawing was rotated and asked if I wanted it fixed. Voila, twisted view and revised points, and I kept the crd file connected to the drawing. I would return it at the end of the day with an ascii file. Their draftsmen thought it was magic.
About 25% of my work there was fill in surveying, they had 2 full time solo robots. I would go out with the surveyor partner or a younger trainee. Typically I used my SMI data collector but had no problem using their TDS data collector if the project was already in it. I always downloaded my SMI and connected the dots before turning it over, with my raw and ascii files. The best draftsman in the firm enjoyed that it always seemed well oriented for a final plan.
Toward the end they had Carlson Survey loaded on one computer and Carlson C&G (pretty much just different survey pulldowns) on the surveyor partner's computer. Because I was not a regular I would sometimes get squeezed off the Carlson Survey computer and without my laptop had to make do with LDD. Much cursing was involved.
But, no LDD users ever became believers.
Paul in PA
Wendell, There Is A Glitch In My Post Above
On the first line there are now three spaces between SurvCADD 10. and the All that follows. I edited twice to add a space but they never showed up.
Not a biggie.
Hmmm? It happened in this post, something to do with 10.
Paul in PA
Wendell, There Is A Glitch In My Post Above
> On the first line there are now three spaces between SurvCADD 10. and the All that follows. I edited twice to add a space but they never showed up.
I think it's just HTML, which treats multiple spaces as one.
Once again I've got to be contrary ....
> ....But orientation, scale, and units are flexible depending on the use.
Can't orientation, scale, and units be utilized without actually moving/changing the drawing and their coordinates? I mean you can "twist" the "view" without rotating the actual drawing. Rotating the actual drawing will probably mess up the north arrow and coordinates.
Yeh, But I Don't Even See One
Paul in PA
Once again I've got to be contrary ....
This specific case was an Engineer as indicated toward the end of the OP. However, I was generally addressing issues that I've had with both over the years.
I don't have an issue with Architects or Engineers orienting the site plan so that the building or the long axis of the site is square with the sheet. I have a problem with the brute force methods that are often used to get there. With Dviewtwist and similar commands that allow us to change the orientation of the drawing on the sheet without changing the modelspace orientation, I find rotating the entire drawing in modelspace to be an unacceptable method.
As for scale and units, my education included a couple of semesters of Architectural Drafting. We were taught that Architectural plans (floor plans, sections, details, etc) were to be drawn 1 unit = 1 inch and plotted to an architectural scale. Civil plans were to be drawn 1 unit = 1 foot and plotted to the appropriate engineering scale. All drawings showing the site in plan view were considered a civil plans. (The instructor had a degree in architecture and had experience as the CAD manager for a large local architectural firm, so I always assumed he knew his business. Perhaps I was misinformed.
It Is The Architects Responsibility To Verify Ft-In To Ft.00
Too often I have found go around errors. You go around the exterior and find a closing error. Lame architects have told me to go the other way which just shifts the error point. My question back, do you want your designed steel to be too long or too short? Architectural checkers sometimes have a big problem adding and subtracting a lot of Ft-Ins. Decimals make it easier.
Paul in PA
> Is TwistScreen really a problem for folks????
Are you serious? I've seen CAD files where different layers were a problem for folks.
I just got a survey from another firm last week (from 2010) that had every single line on the same layer and they were all white.
> I just got a survey from another firm last week (from 2010) that had every single line on the same layer and they were all white.
Sounds to me like they didn't really want to give up the file and decided to make it difficult.
