(referenced in topic # 40795)
This thread is intended to be a place to share examples of good things to include in a set of plans and specs, and vise versa. I have for years strived to put out a good set of drawings – but the target seems to move constantly.
So lets hear from the guys reading/interpreting the plans – what is useful, what is useless?
Thanks in advance…. hopefully this goes well and will be useful for all.
Replies
Take a look at http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages/?msg=23455.1
I'm an engineer who works in manufacturing. I specify equipment for vendors and contractors. When I built my house I followed some of the same practices. Here's an example of a window schedule. A format like this could be used for doors, room finishes, and so forth. My builder seemed happy to get it. Some folks said builders like this to appear on the drawings, so all information is in one place, others like having this in an 8½ x 11 document package because it's easier to work with in the office.
Not being a builder, I'm not really on the side to answer your question, but I trust that builders will speak up on this example if they like it or don't.
As a builder who most times does foundation to finish, the most critical sheet for me is the foundation plan AND the dimensions. Despite discussions here to the contrary, it is very achievable to get a foundation plumb, square and level to with a 1/4" overall, and, if the rest of the plan is drawn to marry to the foundation, the structure goes up with very little problem.
I built a house last year off a set of plans by a local Archy who I'd never worked with before...he has a rep for creativity and style, but the plans were the the worst I've ever encountered; dimensions sometimes to center of wall, sometimes to inside or outside of framing, some dimensions missing altogether, floor plan superimposed over foundation plan (a common practice, but a pain in the butt), some dimensions missing altogether or cumulative dimensions not totalled for overall. (I can do the math, but should I have to?)
To clinch it, he had the "North" orientation 90 degrees off and, since the house was sited near a river, his layout would not have enabled us to achieve the required 100' setback from high water levels and would have put the house right on top of the septic system! Lesson: Visit and become familiar with the site!
On top of it all, his blue print machine was either worn out or needed the formaldehyde tank refilled....portions were completely unreadeable.
And I was taught early on never to scale off of plans...it IS necessary to do so occasionally, but shouldn't be a day to day necessity.
In my high school drafting class, this guy would have flunked!
I've also built for a couple of HO's who were engineers and who provided supplementary dwgs. Dimensioning to 1/64th of an inch when framing with wood is not necessary! If a fit neets to be that precise, a moderately sharp pencil, and a sharp blade in a wormdrive all driven by an experienced operator makes a perfect fit a piece of cake.
I do house plans for clients on occasion. For the permit set, I provide minimum detail...just enough to get by the plans checker. I'll usually have a few extra sheets to provide non-structural detail to help the customer visualize and as a courtesy or reminder to the builder (whether or not it's me).
Well, I'm hung up by my own confused scheme of organization. I can't find my copies of "least best" drawing practice locally.
How bad? Plenty. Archy drawn for outside of code juridiction. Long gabled house with a half-width (narrow dimension) second floor. One set of details shows the ceiling/floor joists running the wrong way, the other is drawn for a 3-2x12 "beam" to carry the second floor--except that that beam is only 14 1/2" long between the joists. Oops. Oh, and the second floor has veneer face brick, too. No ledger angle called out (no flashing, either). Drawn as if the brick is set on the roof sheathing of the first floor roof.
I can only imagine what sorts of language was used by the framer. Archy has a lisence and everything (stamped & signed the drawings). "reasonable man" definition of professional malpractice being better than the 2 worst examples of your profession leaves a bit of leeway with this dude.
It makes for a good and educational bull session to review this topic once in a while.
My memory makes the drawings of one guy really stand out after several years. He did drawings of every interior wall in elevation and all in the same scale. It made a lot of the more complex details easy to understand.
Conversely, one of the worst habits i have seen is a set of drawings with just about every view or plan in a different scale. It might save a bit of paper, but it sure is confusing and time wasting.
We do a lot of remo with various atypical features, such as balloon framing and differing ceiling heights. We do not always have all window headers and door headers lined up either, like in new work on tract homes. Since the carps do most of their building from the main floorplan drawing, I make notes in each room, "frame ceiling to 104" or whatever, and the note for RO of window indicates header height from floor.
Critical dimension strings hardly seem worth mentioning but they are missing far too often.
I have to repeat the storey of the carpenter who had to frame for something like an 11'8" wide window unit in a ten foot wide room.
I probably spend a third of my drafting tiome checking for errors and refining the design. Maybe that is a sign that I'm anal. Maybe it is a sign that I'm not a very good designer since I don't get #### perfect the first time, but maybe it is a sign that too many other designers don't do enough double checking. They seem to spit the drawings out the door without proofreading - the way I do some of my posts here at Breaktime
;0)
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Maybe it is a sign that I'm not a very good designer
First on my check list for a good designer, actually. The "I did it right the first time" attitude is a terrible thing to do to something as permanent as a building. I'm never satidified with the first design. Even if I am, I'll do whatever I can to go back through the thing and second guess every assumption. If possible, I try to look at the plans as if they are a remodel. What would a person 30 years down the road see on those plans? Where would they add a room,where would they knock down (or add) a wall?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
To Piffin, et al....
window sizes:
What do you do when the bid is too high and the window mfr changes? More than once, I've had this happen, and I end up scrambling to check head & sill heights versus counters & bookshelf valances because the units ended slightly different from the plans, but "close enough". Do you re-issue plans?
All too often lately people plan on building a dream house for 20 years, then once they pull the trigger to commission a design, they've gotta have it DONE in 10 months. I try to advocate taking your time & doing it right one time, but around here its all about getting in by the next summer season... and it compromises things quite frequently.
I'm very interested in the RO versus Unit size question. On most plans I see that appear to be well thought out, I see interior doors noted 3080 or similar, NOT giving RO but the size of the door. Windows, likewise. I'm curious if strong reasons exist for using one way over another.
Thx for continuing the discourse.
"they've gotta have it DONE in 10 months"
I just got off the phone with a lady who wants it done in four months from now. The problem is i'm the designer and this was the first time she talked to me.
My reply...
We'll mam, I um... probably by... um... Thanksgiving.
Then I suggested that she find a spec house.
I just went through this with window changes. Did the plans with marvins but the overall package price was a savings of sixteen grand with Pella. The owners went with Pella.
We already had half the windows framed at the Marvin sizes and had to reframe, shaving a grand off the savings, plus a couple of hours re-doing the drawings. With the Cad, it wasn't too hard to do.
You made me think about something paradoxical on sizing. We do note the window RO sizes but for Doors, we note the actual door size. Seems inconsistent but we've always done it that way.
Probably because doors are pretty consistent but each window manufacturer has a slightly different add for the frame to RO, and with only a 1-1/4" nailing fin, there isn't as much room for error.
RE the planning time line, As abuilder, i was always frustrated that folks thought they could spend months making a decision but expected it implemented on site within days. But my wife and I spent three years on the plans for or house and only a year to erect it and move in, sans trims.
As a designer, I can often spend eight or nine months in design developement and client meetings for decisions for a six month construction project. I can see both sides of it now that I'm on both sides.
Planning is good. The fastest job I ever did was a seven day kitchen. I spent three weeks planning every item and detail and aligning all the subs. There were reasons it had to go fast, and it did. because of planning.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
It is not included on the drawings, but here is something I do for the framers.
I use my CAD program and redraw all floor plans, from the info given on the paper plans. It typically takes me one evening to do this. By doing this, I can "proof" the plans and flush out any errors. CAD doesn't lie, and it never makes math errors.
Once I have everything "closing," I go to the x-y "zero" corner as agreed to between me and my framer. This is the point that begins modular layout, in two directions. It is the "hook on" corner. From that corner I use the CAD program to dimension "hook on" figures for all openings, wall intersects, plumbing fixture floor drain centers, and corners. When it is time in the field to snap out lines on decks, long tapes are hooked onto as few corners as possible, and layout is done without compounding errors that might come from string dimensioning.
This post goes beyond your question a little but maybe it will be worth a read anyway. Most of our designs are commercial but there are a couple things we do at my firm that get constant praise from the field. They could apply to any type of structure.
We try to think like the guy who is going to bid the job first and then add any additional information the guy who is going to build it might need. If it's easily bid, chances are it will be easily built. If it's easily built, chances are everybody will make a little money. A bad set of drawings just screws that all up. The building will almost allways cost more, and the profits for everyone will be lower, with poor planning.
By keying all the notes to the CSI master format, and building our specs to coordinate, we leave no question about which sub is going to pick up what portion of the building. For example, the specs state that "all work noted with drawing notes 06100 through 06199 to be performed by the 06100 Rough Framing Contractor." Nobody has to guess whether to add that piece of flashing into the bid just in case we are supposed to cover it instead of someone else. It is amazing the difference in the square footage bid prices our firm achieves over our competitors with this little trick. A precise bid is a profitable bid - the drawings should, first and foremost, eliminate the guess work.
Wall sections take up the majority of the sheets in a set of our plans. Nothing conveys detail more effectively than several sheets of well noted wall sections. If you think through all of the walls on the building well enough to draw a good section of all the variable floor to roof conditions you will almost certainly arrive at a solid and buildable design. Believe it or not, most of our multi-million dollar jobs have few if any separate detail sheets. It's not that we don't draw a lot of details, it's just that most of them are in "pull out bubbles" right on the wall section sheets. What isn't covered there is almost always picked up in the door and window detail sheets. Come to think of it, I honestly can't think of the last time I had a set of drawings with even one separate detail only sheet. They are usually not required.
We dimension with a purpose and with precision. Hypotenuse dimensions for corner to corner square checks save the guys in the field a few calculations, dimensioning to everything your cursor can snap to adds a lot of field calculation. All dimensions pull from the same side of every single wall and thicker chase walls get dimensioned to both sides with the width noted. If a space is just too small to be clearly dimensioned, we add a sheet of enlarged area plans and make it clear.
We try to also give plenty of time between release of drawings and bid date to get feed back and allow for a couple of addendums. Nobody is perfect - admit it and get it fixed pronto. I call a lot of the subs that typically bid our work a couple of days before bid to make sure they got all of the addendums.
I'm anal about checking submittal drawings too. That design/build back and forth checking of each other's work is so critical to a successful job. Attitudes eat profits - when you're wrong, suck it up and fix it. When the other guy is wrong, give them a way to make it right without being a jerk then move on.
Kevin Halliburton
"In him the whole building is joined together ..." Ephes. 2:21
Wrecked,
That was awesome - thanks for the feedback.
I'm curious how the home builders will respond to your CSI number/spec issue. I love the condoc system, where every callout starts with a spec section reference, but lots of guys roll their eyes and make snide comments about book specs... To me it's a great system. I'm also with you on the submittal stage - at some point it gets to be a burden, but a carefully developed list of required shops/submittals will really help a project.
thanks again
Nothing conveys detail more effectively than several sheets of well noted wall sections.
Well said!
I just finished a section through a garage and addition for a project to figure out the soffit details with respect to the 10' building seperation, and the 5' setback. Few architects include sections (except for the generic detail for the building dept.) I find this really helps me figure out how something will be built. It shows essential info such as sill hts. and stairs, especially when there are headroom issues. Since most of the plans I get have 'match existing' all over them, I find I am the one doing all the figuring.
-CSC
Doing the section drawings is one of the best ways I know to catch your own mistakes and refine the plans.
That said, as a builder, I prefer the "Match to existing" notation over trying to figure out if the archy really wants it the way he drew it or something that actually compliments the house and looks good.
one thing that I do when I go to measure and set things up for a remodel or addition job is bring along the digital camera. I never remember all the details but the camera never forgets. It save trips back to the house and helps me do details correctly. Also, some areas have lots of finer measurements. I can just lay the tape out and shopot a photo or two and then pick out all the finer dimensions back at the PC by zooming in.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
> Also, some areas have lots of finer measurements. I can just lay the tape out and shopot a photo or two and then pick out all the finer dimensions back at the PC by zooming in.
I have a couple old 6 ft folding rules with every other 6" painted black (inherited from an old time art director). These are for wider shots where the tape markings won't resolve. They used this same technique with regular chemical photography in the old days, probably with 4x5 Speed Graphics. I'll send you an extra one if I can find it.
-- J.S.
Got one with Sharpies marks on it to highlight every four inches
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Few architects include sections (except for the generic detail for the building dept.) I find this really helps me figure out how something will be built.
I've seen this, and I simply cannot understand it. But then, I'm better at the nuts & bolts than the sd/dd phase, too. I find I have to section my own designs to see if I can do things (and generally the answer is "no" . . . <g>) I was thinging about a three window shed dormer for one or both sides of my larger (6' clear under the 4/12 roof) attic space). Turns out it can be done, but I would need a 2-0 by 8" window unit to do it right. That's not the "look" I wanted. Lesson learned, only expense was sweat time in attic measureing and some paper and electrons.
I also like things like light coves and dropped, "cloud" ceilings--almost no way to properly detail those without a section. Wall sections lend themselves, as Kevin noted, handily to detail callouts, too.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Kevin, you just saved me a lot of writing. <G>
I helped instigate this thread, and said I'd post to it, but you've already said pretty much everything I would have, and expressed it more clearly than I would have. Nicely done, I must say.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of closed dimension strings pulled from a common point, likewise for sections and details. Not only do they clarify matters for those of us in the field, they are also an excellent chance to work through the process in the office and uncover design conflicts.
I'm no designer by any stretch, but if I found myself having trouble with a design, I'd develop a sectional detail to figure it out.
DRC
I included several sheets in my own set of plans that would never be included in a set I give to a client.
My "supplementary foundation sheet" had the hypotenuse dimensions of every corner pulled from two datum points. I laminated that sheet to a piece of foam core, took a pair of 100' tapes to the job, attached the ends to my datum points and checked off every corner for square in a matter of about 30 minutes. My foundation sub really appreciated that extra sheet, although I'm not entirely sure he appreciated my cross check the day before the pour. :-)>
My "supplementary foundation plan" used coordinate dimensions where I set the zero" point at the inside face of my Structural Insulated Panels and set incremental coordinate points all the way across the floor for each of the sill plate locations. I took that sheet to the job site, attached the end of my tape to the face of the panel and put a mark on the floor at each of the coordinates. A couple of chalk line snaps later my wall layout was done - No "field math" involved. (let's see, 3'-4"+ 8'-6"+...? where is the next dimension? Oh dang, now I forgot the number I had in my head... ugh!) I also did another sheet with the hypotenuse dimensions for all the wall corners pulled from two datums that let me double check square and plumb on the wall layout pretty dang quick.
The problem with those supplementary sheets is that only the guy who was going to be laying out the walls could have drawn the sheet to the way he wanted to do it. Actually, the plans for my own house are a hodge podge of different drawings that I alone can understand. Now that I'm pulling in subs for HVAC, plumbing and electric I'm having to work up new plans better suited to their needs.
All of that to say, the very best set of drawings for building is actually not a very practical set for bidding at all. Most contractors have learned how to take the "Bid Drawings" and create a set of "Build Drawings" from them that will let them do their job most efficiently.
I think, as designers, we could probably learn the most about what we are leaving out by putting our hands on the field guys set every now and then to see what chicken scratching they've done to compensate for our shortcomings. Of course, we would have to be thick skinned enough to take the "margin notes" and "cartoon pictures" pertaining to the designer with a grain of salt. :-)>Kevin Halliburton
"In him the whole building is joined together ..." Ephes. 2:21
I learned a good lesson recently when I received a CAD plan (about 95% done) from a company that needed a build-out in a commercial space.
Although this plan was almost complete, they needed a local architect to provide lighting, hvac design, and local code compliance.
Within days of being complete, I happen to try to take a dimension from the existing drawings (which was a hard copy) and overlay the CAD file the company sent. Oops. It turns out the CAD file I received was 9'-3" OFF from the existing. EDIT: This was in a space that was 70'-0" long. Wow.
Hoo Boy. So, the hvac and electrical had to be revised, along with the CAD file they sent. It made me grit my teeth, but I decided I was to blame. I should have verified the existing dimensions vs. the CAD file. What led me down the wrong path was the CAD file I received was quite well developed. I just assumed that it was correct.
Anyway, although I ended up doing two site visits to check and verify OTHER issues, doing a dimension check was not one of them. I have added this to the growing list of things NOT to do.
If I don't draw it, I don't trust it.
Edited 3/9/2004 9:49:08 AM ET by htra
If I don't draw it, I don't trust it
One of the banes of my CAD experience was finding CAD files with edited dimensions. Ok, so it happens to get the prints "out" sometimes (shouldn't, but it does). No, what peeved me was when this happened and the files were still being shared electronically. I would up writing a Lisp routine to check dimension text versus the actual dimenson. Problem solved, right? I start getting plans from builders (for cabinet take offs), and only 5% of the dimensions match the cad model at all. Peachy.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I use ArchiCAD, and it's quite hard for me to "cheat" with dimensions. It is what it is. If I move it, it's THAT. I can "kill" the dimension line, and then write what I want in it, but then it won't move anymore.
I may be wrong, but Autocad (or at least earlier versions) does not act like this? You can type in anything you want?
However it occurs, I routinely get files that are not drawn correctly, but are dimensioned correctly. While this works on paper, it drives me up the wall in CAD. What's the point if it's not DRAWN correctly! <rant>
It's fun though when someone needs an obscure dimension from one thing to another and I can give it to them with confidence because I know it's RIGHT.
I may be wrong, but Autocad (or at least earlier versions) does not act like this? You can type in anything you want?
No, not wrong. The dimension commands will deafult to the actual, measured dimension (which can be changed to a specific precision). But, you can "type over" that with what ever you want. Originally, this let you use third party fonts for fractions & the like (like a centerline symbol). One of the least used (or possibly known) improvements in Release 10 was that you could add notes to the associative dimension. So, if the space is 11'-6 /8" and you want to append "V.I.F." you just type "<> V.I.F." in the space for the dimension text. If you change the dimension, its text changes, too, but still keeps the "V.I.F." tag.
Now what peeves me is when someone redlines the window spacing, say, in the design shop. The wage slaves working the OTJ learned CAD don't have the time to use the routines built into the AutoCAD overlay, so they just change the dimension on the floor plan(s). (Typically, they skip the elevations, and cabinet details, though--not that I've had bitter experience with this . . . )
However it occurs, I routinely get files that are not drawn correctly, but are dimensioned correctly. While this works on paper, it drives me up the wall in CAD. What's the point if it's not DRAWN correctly! <rant>
I had to think about that twice to get what you mean. You are talking about those neat things like framing drawn at 16" OC, but labled 19.2"? Or, my personal favorite, the generic wall section drawn with 2x6 rafters and 2x8 ceiling joists, but called out as 2x12 rafters and 2x10 joists either "as required" or "per subdivision"? Or is it the bathroom with a framing dimension of 36", but calls for a 36" vanity cabinet with 2 3" fillers? ("But, it's 36" on the plan, I checked it twice, whadda'y mean a 36" cabinet won't fit?")
It's fun though when someone needs an obscure dimension from one thing to another and I can give it to them with confidence because I know it's RIGHT.
So true. Even better when I get the laptop out, and show them. Or, I cobble together some lumber sections, and then extrude them out to show what I've detailed in 2d in 3d. Also cool. At some point, I know I will have to go with TabletPC, if only sa as to be able to draw right there, in the field. Six pack of Sharpies in different colors, and material scraps will have to suffice until then . . . <sigh>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
>> ... best set of drawings for building is actually not a very practical set for bidding ...
Why is that, just too much detail to dig through?
Oops, did I say that? I meant to say, "the best set of drawings for bidding is actually not a very practical set for building." In my experience builders work the bidding plans over quite a bit in order to get a good set of "working drawings."
I would like to hear from some of the builders as to their techniques for processing bid drawings into field drawings. What kind of drawing modifications do you guys typically make in the field? Aside from correcting errors, what are some of the key differences between your "build set" and what initially comes in the door? Kevin Halliburton
"In him the whole building is joined together ..." Ephes. 2:21
>Nothing conveys detail more effectively than several sheets of well noted wall sections.
I've thought this over for most of the last hour. Sections in most domes are a real bitch. Not just mine, but in other plans I've seen from an architect with a lot of dome experience. So often I have walls that curve and follow neither axis, and so the sections are cutting walls in multiple places or at a severe angle. I'd like to show the wall framing, too, or even just provide it for takeoffs for the builder's convenience, but my cad won't "frame" round walls, and whenever a wall's top plate curves to meet the dome overhead, it doubles the joists everywhere there's a height change. I regularly struggle with getting round stuff to look sensible on 2D paper. Probably why I rely so much on 3D models. Of course they work best if the builder actually bothers to check his email!
Funny you should pop in here with those comments. When I was typing that first message I almost included your domes as an exception to just about every rule. You have more than a challenge or two designing those things and conveying the design on paper I'm sure.
You and Frank Gerry have to rely on 3D a lot more than the rest of us. Frank uses an automotive modeling program if I'm not mistaken (Catia I think). Organic shapes do not lend themselves well to the rigid constraints of 2D CAD. It's one of the many reasons I hold your designs in such high regard.Kevin Halliburton
"In him the whole building is joined together ..." Ephes. 2:21
"Invented by Dessault Systems for the design of Mirage fighter jets, CATIA is now the primary computer design tool for Boeing and DaimlerChrysler." from the Experience Music Project press info.
Very interesting stuff.
I looked at CATIA a long long time ago and it was a lot more advanced than all the other nurbs based modelers out there. It was never intended to be used in architecture but Gerry has done some pretty amazing things with it. While I lack the architectural sophistication to fully appreciate Gerry's style I greatly admire his innovative adaptation of this powerful technology to architecture.Kevin Halliburton
"In him the whole building is joined together ..." Ephes. 2:21
...lacking the 'architectural sophistication' is one way to put it...
You've intrigued me with wanting to find out if I can do dome framing on Softplan. Probably not. I can do the solid model with it, but...???
It has a curved wall tool and a barrel or curved roof. I can do a concert shape to wall but a dome is a pretty unique shape and it is part wall and part roof. I gotta play with thisconcept and see what it'll do. Not tonight though. I'm fading fast after a hard day.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
If you really wanna have fun, draw a partial torus (half a donut with end caps, for example) and then vary the segment radii across the torus, sorta like if the donut ate a mouse and it's sitting mid-way. That's a fun shape. Typically needs a loft capability. And then figure out how to do walls that curve tight to the shell overhead. Intersected domes with radiused intersections are also fun. Latest exploration was intersecting about four domes, with parts of each extending into the others, kinda like if you make domes with your fingertips on the tabletop and then slide them together till they overlap. That had my brain all mixed up for a day or three.
Kevin, even though the compound curves make the prints tricky, it's probably even more incumbent on me to find the ways to communicate the details clearly, be/c I can't count on the shapes inherently making sense to any of the subs. The prints are the weakest part of my game, but I'm working on it, and read things like this thread, and your post, with great interest. I also often ask builders what else or different they'd like to see on prints, but don't often get answers...they're busy building and not grading my work. So I take notes whenever they call with questions and learn through that. And hey, if they refer new clients to me for design, at least I'm not pissing them off too badly!
Shapes are doable. It is identifying them as walls or roofs that gets funky. Walls have one set of attributes and roofs have another set. What I could do is draw a shape and put a textuire on it and call it done, but that doesn't do anything for guys in field or estimators..
Of course that's all some CAD jockeys do anyway, LOL
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Edited 3/10/2004 6:57 pm ET by piffin
>It is identifying them as walls or roofs that gets funky.
Got identical behavior with Vectorworks. I've taken to scripting all the shapes that are repeated. Do a lot of cutting and trimming of them for placement of windows, etc. The couple of times I did something rectilinear, I felt like I was on speed, considering how fast it went.
I've been thinking about this while watching a movie tonight.
Sorry this is a bit oof topic everyone but i like the mental challenges.
I believe I could do working drawings fairly well on a dome by drawing it up showing a curved wall for the exterior and editing to define it as say 1.5" tall. Then I would draw it up normally and create a shereical shell of whateve thickness. In the model, the interior walls would project through the shell but interior views would be real. The section drawings would only need erasing of the projectiong portions and would provide a way of testing spaces. Of course, I know next to nothing about dome design and construction...
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Yes, I do exactly that. There's times it doesn't work. Like tonight. Got one that kinda wraps back around itself, so you see some of the inside and some of the outside at the same time. Generally do elevations before sections, so that I can do what you mention with the walls. Of course, if I'm doing renderings, can't let those stinkin walls show.
Every time I hear a story about a plumber savaging the framing, especially for tub and toilet drains, I wonder why that's allowed to happen. Is it completely impractical for the designer to include the drains and the surrounding framing in the plan view? Is the problem that the designer doesn't know where the sewer or septic connection will be when the plans are being drawn? Or is the location of the connection not always known even when the floor framing starts?
If the location of the sewer connection could be known before the framing starts, how many avoided callbacks would it take to pay for somebody who knows framing and somebody who knows plumbing - ideally the same somebody - to figure out how to get the drains from the fixtures to the connection and what the adjacent framing has to be to making it happen without tearing things to sh*t, and draw the drains and at least that much of the framing on the plans?
Or is this rare enough that it's cheaper to just pay for the occasional callback?
A bad example told to me by a builder was a set he just got for a 66'D dome with a 16'D atrium in the middle. There was no detail at all on the atrium. None. He called to say he needed details if he was gonna bid it, and was told, "Well, there are many different ways that can be built, so the builder should field-engineer it." Geez, by that philosophy, I can send in a blank sheet of paper and just tell 'em to field engineer the whole thing.
I use an older version of Turbocad for a Mac. Since I am the builder then I draw with myself in mind. One thing I like to do is draw the elevations showing the framing with every stick. I stack the floors with the subfloor and joists and roof accounting for every fraction so I can get an accurate height for the finish structure. In the Tahoe basin, every square foot of coverage is counted and restricted so I max the height limit as much as I can. It is easy with Cad to frame a house. If you need a 104.25" stud then you draw it and copy it all over. I draw all the windows and doors with trimmers ,cripples and studs and move them a little if I need to to make them land on the layout to save studs. The engineer I submit my plans to loves to see the framing elevations because he can locate holddowns and other hardware easier then if noted on a floor plan like on regular drawings. I then draw and note all the hardware on the framing elevations and it makes a visual reference that is helpful for people like me. The building dept. is also impressed with the framing elevations. I also draw the stairs behind the framing to see how they will work. For floor framing I draw all the plumbing and HVAC penetration. I move or head out the joisting accordingly. For roof framing I draw every jack and valley and it really helps when I am finally up there doing the work. All this is on my computer so if I need to add notes like specific dimensions the day I am doing the work, I print it out and bring a copy on a clipboard to reference.
All,
Figured this might be a good place to ask.
How many of you Archy's actually 3D model a home (vs. creating elevation and section drawings) Where I work everything is a 3D model. To generate any concievable view, of any section, after the model is done, takes seconds.
Just curious.
Jon
Well, I don't do residential, but I'll chime in anyway...
We typically model something in 3d for one main reason: to communicate what we're proposing. Sometimes it's to explain it to ourselves (to make sure it works), sometimes to the owner, sometimes to people the owner is hitting up for donations, and sometimes it's to explain to the contractors how everything fits together.
There is no cad package where everything works semelessly together well enough to just model something in 3d and have it produce plans, sections, elevations and details from it. At least not plans, sections, elevations, and details that have everything we need to show the way we need to show it.
That having been said, our drawings do have a fair amount of 3d information in them so 3d models and renderings can be put together from them pretty quickly.
This is just my experience, though.
You're right, the biggest reason for 3D for me is sales and communicating with the client. Most are dimensionally challenged or downright illiterate when it comes to visualization. I don't think more than ten percent or so of the population can see anything other than lines when they look at a set of plans
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Edited 3/10/2004 8:40 pm ET by piffin
Not archy, just stinkin' designer, but I 3D model. The elev and sect would be impossible otherwise. Even though the sections are easy to create, they take a lot of touchup, be/c walls in CAD never curve neatly to meet the dome overhead and cabinets need "fill" pieces, etc. , and I always have raggedy stuff to cleanup.
just started doing this for real, using ADT. some growing pains, for sure but gets easier each time
Softplan works as a 3D model - objects like walls already have all the studs etc contained. so constructioin a section or any view is limited only by the power of the machine. My Ahlon 750 takes three of fouyr seconds. A really complicated atypical house can take eight or ten seconds to build on screen
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
We use 3D mostly for communicating with a client, although sometimes it's also used to figure out things for ourselves.
Although in ArchiCAD one is supposed to pretty much stay in 3D and take all elevations and sections out of that, it doesn't really work for me. Too much stuff to clean up, and too much detail left out. I use 3D to set the "bones" of the building up, and then usually detail out in 2D.
For a typical residence, I start in 3D, work up exterior and interior shots as needed, and slowly transition into sections. The model really helps in getting the design figured out. At the end I'm completely in 2D. It's the best way for me so far.
Personally, I flat love working in 3D. The day I can be cranking out 3D details with the same ease as 2D.. wow, I can't wait. I have so much experience invested in ArchiCAD that I worry a better program can come along and make me start all over. Just have to hope ArchiCAD keeps up with the others. I've played with "Sketch-Up" - wow! The future of 3D is going to be exciting.
Maybe as an alternate thread some could post 3D work they are proud of? Sounds like we have some talented folks here!
3D mostly for communicating with a client, although sometimes it's also used to figure out things for ourselves.
That's been my process. I get the walls & spaces defined, and work up general shapes for the roof, & the like, all in 2D. I then loft that up to create a 3d model to sell to the customer. The 3d model also helps me find and refine areas in the structure. Mind you, I'll loft a section or detail right on the floor plan (on it's own layer) to work out how to achieve a particular thing--a big advantage to CAD over 'real' paper drawings . . . )
None of the drafting packages I have seen will actually make a "good enough" working drawing to my taste (and I can draw in 2d faster than the clean up of the "created" drawings). Additionally, the "autogenerated" 2d drawings often have assumptions about framing, structure and the like that I actually have to supress. Especially ADT (not the alarm outfit, but Architectural DeskTop, the 3d AutCAD tool).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I don't want to defend ADT, because I have a love/hate relationship with it - but I've got the 2004 version and it's come a long way in this regard. It's still borderline counter-intuitive (too freaking complex) but the 04 release was a huge step in the right direction and the 05 version is just days away, with lots of continued improvement.
With it, I'm starting to "throw electrons" to construct my walls with sheathing inside & out, top & bottom plates, rim joists, etc in them, so the sections become much closer to real/useful. Also, I can create framing plans that suppress the wall finishes and displays just the studs, and finish plans that show actual wall thicknesses (great for tile drawings, etc), and electrical plans that halftone the linework "behind them", all from the same basic info.
OTOH, it can be a royal PITA even if you use it daily. I'm giving serious thought to getting Revit... The grass is always greener....
Stick with ADT if you have it. It is the best program on the market for architecture, ONCE YOU GET PAST THE LEARNING CURVE. ADT is the only software I ever had to conceed that I needed to invest in proffessional training on.
It was worth it, and the program was a cakewalk to work with after a day of proffesional help. Kevin Halliburton
"Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will serve before kings; he will not serve before obscure men." - Solomon
I'm giving serious thought to getting Revit... The grass is always greener....
Hard not to look twice at Revit. The "glossy" magazine articles keep calling the cat's meow--at the same time gushing about ADT. The concept of BIM is intriguing, it is, however, the execution that is the ricky bit (and the part that makes us money).
So, there's that "get in early on ground floor" versus "early adopter=beta bug tester" argument. Price is a big issue for me, I just cannot support a second "big" package right now, not without very very good reasons. Wait and see seems to be the order of the day.
On one of the CAD fora, the question was asked where are the Civil & Structural Engineering DTs? The Structure DT would seem to be a natural market. About half the structural engineers I know are already using AutoCAD, but they are having to butt heads up against the ADT users, as they are typically importing 'flat' 2d data into the ADT models. Not a swift deal in my book.
I actually get to regress a bit, the office I'm starting in is using R14 and a Softdesk 8 overlay (or both). They've not had much in hte way of formal organization for their data, either. Lots for me to do, there.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I love the idea of us sharing some of the 3d work we've done... it's always great to see what people are doing. I don't do a whole lot of presentation quality 3d work anymore, but I spent a couple of years as an intern doing little else. Here are some examples:
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
View Image
"I spent a couple of years as an intern doing little else. Here are some examples:"
Marnold,
So you worked on the Calatrava wing of The Milwaukee Art Museum AND also The Bradley Center? Pretty impressive.
What firm did you work for, and when?
"What firm did you work for, and when?"
I sent you an email off forum.
So that last "picture" is really a drawing?
I'm seriously impressed.
Jon Blakemore
"So that last "picture" is really a drawing?"
Actually, most of the image is a photograph... the skywalk is a rendered 3d model which was composited into the photo.
How about starting a thread in the Photo Gallery and put these there? If you do, I'll add some. That'd be a fun thread to add to now and then, and in the Gallery, it'd be easier to find.
This may be too simple. A good set of drawings should convey all needed information and leave off what is not. I think it is especially helpful if all required dimensions are shown. The craftsman should not have to calculate anything in the field but be able to lay out the work and build it. This goes for architectural, structural or mechanical drawings. Lettering should be neat but not so stylized that it is difficult to read.
While you should not scale drawings, all drawings should be done to scale and the scale noted. The best joke I ever heard about this was from a welding foreman who taught me much. He once asked me, "What does the engineer mean when he writes N.T.S?" I said, "Why that means 'Not To Scale'." He said, "No, that means the engineer is Not Too Sure!" That fine gentleman has now passed on but this engineer will never forget the things he taught me. Thanks Richard!
first thank you for the new vesion of N.T.S.
I have seen to many drawngs that should be NTS or as cloud hidden said "field engineered"
I dont know how many jobs we have done with "professional " drawings that could not work as drawn or left out important detail because of NTS ( love it will use that a lot now)
We used to sub for a general that did his own drawings and ldft out as much as possible
reasons: owner could not question why something was a certin way
building inspector could not ask why something differed from the drawings
anyway he had many subs, foundation sub, floor framing sub, and then we would come in and build walls and roll trusses. the last one we did for the man , the floor system had to cantiiver off the foudation by almost two feet as the drawings for one sub were different then those for the others. Our drawings were mainly for reference of general idea and we could fake it how ever we needed to but had to do it with what ever materials were on hand
it did catch up with him, owner of this house was furious
building department head retired and new guy wont accept his drawings anymore
"This may be too simple. A good set of drawings should convey all needed information and leave off what is not."
Sawdust,
Very true. Many, many years ago, when building wooden patterns (for castings) by hand from "blue prints", It was always soooo much easier doing it off a pattern or casting print vs. the final detail (machine or assembly) print. Too much info.
"What does the engineer mean when he writes N.T.S?" I said, "Why that means 'Not To Scale'." He said, "No, that means the engineer is Not Too Sure!"
Yeah, in the days BEFORE 3D CAD, the people on the shop floor had the ability to take great "liberties" in making stuff, as in 2D, it couldn't be efficiently drawn by hand.
Jon