Okay, I am hoping to start a serious discussion here, in the selfish hopes of making my job easier. jk. Seriously, I hope you all have a lot to offer that will help me, and help you.
Simple question: What drawings and information should be included in a set of construction drawings for custom house? What would make the set ‘perfect’ and easy to read from the contractor/ framer side?
Reason I ask: I work for an architecture firm as a PM, designer, and pretty much the primary drafstman on 90% of our residential work. I have been doing this for almost 7 years, and I still feel like we completely over draw every house we do. I’ve got pages in sets now that the contractor doesn’t even look at! But then I get questions on the phone almost every day, and sometimes the answers are already there in the drawings. I feel in the mutual relationship between contractor and architect, and I love working with the guys in the field, because they have taught me more than I learned in the office. So I am asking this question, thinking a lively discussion will follow that will help us determine what a good set of drawings is like, and in then end, that will make my work more efficient and the builder won’t curse me on site as much. 🙂
So I am looking for answers to things like dimensions methods, are wall sections worth the effort, or are just details what’s important. What’s better, showing intent (i.e. EQ / EQ) or actually putting the dimensions in (knowing that they will likely vary in the field). What information should be on a roof plan? Are interior room elevations helpful? Are material specs better in the drawings or a written specification, similar to commercial projects?
Hopefully you guys will generate some good responses. I know its a loaded question and lots of variables exist, but I am shooting for the ‘ideal of a perfect set of drawings’ here. One that as a contractor you could read and be shocked that “its all there” and not have to call me and ask for more info. The only calls to the architect would be: “how you have this drawn is good, but I have a better solution.”
There’s gotta be a better way to do this than I what I am doing now.
Thanks and I am looking forward to the discussion.
Replies
Include dimensions that need to be adhered to. If you want something centered, then EQ/EQ works and allows for field adjustment. Don't over-dimension ... include just what is necessary.
Dimension doors and windows consistently and clearly. Centerlines are fine. If not CL, then clearly state if the dimension is RO or something else.
Some plan reviewers require wall sections, so don't blindly eliminate all of them.
A separate spec book is one more thing to keep track of, and to make copies of for subs and vendors.
For details on second and third pages, try to include a reference to where on the floor plan it occurs.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
>showing intent (i.e. EQ / EQ)
How is that drawn? Haven't seen it before.
If a window is centered in a room, there's a dimension from both sides of the room to the center of the window. But instead of dimensions on both sides, the abbreviation "Eq." (equal) is put on the dimension strings to show that both dimensions are equal.
Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet first.
Thank you.
Hemi....we had this discussion not terribly long ago....within the past year I believe.
You might try the search function. Pretty good discussion as I recall.
Happy
Holidays
This is just my take on it, but I believe the more detail, the better.
Looking further down the road, if there is a problem that arises, it's easy to determine if it is a result of poor planning, or poor execution of the plan.
The more basic the plans, the more open for interpretation a sub can be.
I wouldn't want anyone to interpret wrongly what my intent would be. More importantly, any re-works or repairs would be on the architects' nickel.
"Roger Staubach for President"
Guilty as charged, sometimes I am just too lazy to look at what architects have drawn.
My pet peeve.. header sizes drawn into the roof plan or in a 2 story structure the upper floor plan. I want the information that is pertinent to the wall construction on the wall elevations or floor plan for that floor, not in the roof plan.
Or structural details used as space fillers on the hvac or electrical plan.. ARGHH (my last job had down spout locations drawn on the siding plan instead of the site work plan, it was long after I had the site work done that I discovered where they were hiding).
I will echo the comment about a clear and concise way to label details with reference #'s. I love the circles with a horizontal line thru it, and two #'s ,one above and one below the line, upper # is page, lower # is detail # on page (don't know the name for this symbol). Then on the detail page a back reference that indicates what page the detail applies to .
Edited 12/13/2006 12:45 pm ET by dovetail97128
The architect whose work I love shows a minimum of detail, dimensions to the outside of exterior walls, centre of interior walls. He includes details of stair layouts and anything else he thinks might not be as clear as it should be on the plan views. He labels walls and floors of different construction types with letters that refer to a separate schedule. These schedules include everything that will be in the finished house because sometimes you need to know what the finished floor will be when you're framing. Windows and doors are also on a separate list.
This leaves enbough room on the plans to include details of beams and stuctural connections without clutter.
We will have a plan for each level, including the roof, four elevation drawings the schedules and maybe a sheet of details, all on 8 1/2 x 11 or 8 1/2 x 14 paper. Easy recopying.
The designer whose work I hate will just about draw the cans in the kitchen cupboards. He draws furniture on drawings we will be using for framing. Each sheet is cluttered with so much useless detail that you can't find what you need to know, like where things are supposed to go and what they should be built out of.
Ron
Like the others are saying, I think, don't bury the details...and don't let the details bury the structure.Windows and doors as letters in a symbol referenced to a schedual.Elevations that can be used for measurements.Notes on beams: flush, dropped, cosmetic.Stair sections, sections of trim build ups, or other specialiesLegible floor and roof framing plans.Schedules for rooms: incl. floor finishes (w/ thickness'), ceiling hts.Me, I wanna know everything, just not all one page...and provide plenty of copies<G> Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
Legible
Enought said.
blue
yeah I deal with that in this office, and I think that is why I some of these sets get carried away in size. My boss wants me to show furniture and lots of detail so the client can understand what they are looking at. At that point, I almost need to maintain 2 copies, one for the client and one for the contractor.Do you like the wall type schedule method? Its used a lot in commercial work, but I find in residential work there are usually only a small handful of types. You also bring up the details on the plan pages. Is that a preferred method? I have always kept my details on 'detail' sheets, and not put them on the other drawings. However, I have noticed recently that a lot of older hand drafting sets have details on various sheets like elev. and plan shts. This sort of comes down to the page flipping and references or using available space to minimize sheets.
I almost need to maintain 2 copies, one for the client and one for the contractor.
That makes sense to me, after all, you are serving two masters.
blue
> At that point, I almost need to maintain 2 copies, one for the client and one for the contractor.
Yes, but is that such a problem? In AutoCad, just make "Furniture" layers for each floor, and turn them on for the client and off for the contractors. Likewise, the contractor version could have more notes and dimensions that the client doesn't need to see.
-- J.S.
He draws furniture on drawings we will be using for framing. Each sheet is cluttered with so much useless detail that you can't find what you need to know
I have a large bottle of whiteout to fix drawings like those. I use it regulary to whiteout everything not related to my framing.
blue
Blue,
With this guy, I'd need a roller
Ron
> He draws furniture on drawings we will be using for framing.
OK, here's an idea for next April 1: Build and install the furniture as shown on the plans. Invite the architect for a site vist. ;-)
-- J.S.
Two problems that I run into most frequently are the lack of a clear starting point on the architectural plans. When I'm in the field and I want to start my layout I don't want to have to spend a bunch of time trying to figure out where the architect wants me to start my layout. A lot of times that has not been thought through. I, like most guys I think learn over the years to use more and more of the drawings so as far as cutting things out I would only suggest let the structural details to a structural engineer. Normally when I see an architect engineering a framing detail I might look at it but if there is one part of the plan that I'll be quick to disregard its here. So give us dimensions but don't show us how to build. I like interior elevations for kitchens baths and any wall with millwork. And good detailed building elevations. As far as stairs go I think its good to include the number of rises but don't give us the riser dimension.
Remodeling requires a good demo plan.
And stop telling the client things like we'll just salvage that door and move it over there. Or you can just put these things in the middle of the room and the guys will work around them AAARRGGHH!!! :)
>its good to include the number of rises but don't give us the riser dimensionWhy not?Plan reviewers wanna see it even if you don't.
If FF to FF strays a little and a carpenter uses the rise on the plans to cut a staircase It will result in top rise bigger or smaller the whatever the stray is. I think most of us field measure anyway, and the stair companies use shop drawings bbut as far as being an aid to the carpenter I don't see it. If a person can't figure a staircase, they probably should nt be building one.
Great to have a draftsman/architect asking this question.
I think there are areas where the detail needs to be piled on, and places where it needs to be pared down. For example, I'd like a lot of information stored on the plan view page or pages- wall heights, electrical outlet/switch locations and heights, etc. On the detail pages, be specific- eq./eq is understandable, but sometimes it gets to be a long string of "eq" and "align" going back to a point that isn't clearly specified. It feels like someone just didn't want to make a decision.
I like it when more important dimensions are noted. Like you said, dimensions often vary in the field, and sometimes the call to the architect goes in when the carpenter wants to know which way to adjust reality.
Personally, I like to think about planned locations in x,y coordinates, from a single reference point, and sometimes I add up numbers to get to that system. Might just be me though.
zak
"When we build, let us think that we build forever. Let it not be for present delight nor for present use alone." --John Ruskin
"so it goes"
Questions and a suggestion. Who does your lateral engineering? In-house or sourced out? Are those locations on the plans or are there separate engineering pages with locations shown that reference detail drawlings? It's not unusual for the homes that I work on to have an engineering page for each level, (foundation, first floor, second floor and roof) and two pages of drawn details.
Suggestion, ask a builder that you work with on a regular basis if he has plans from another firm that you could review. Not to steal ideas, but to stimulate the thought process.
Harry
We all build differently so there will never be one way to draw plans or it would be widely known. It's perhaps better to identify the type of builders you are drawing for and make generalizations from there.
The track home/low cost builders want to bang it out using production methods that don't always adhere to ideal intentions shown on the plans. The plans should be drawn with that in mind.
Low cost builders are most likely to deviate from the plans, so if something is important to idiot-proof the design it should be included to keep them honest, such as attachment method and structural design of stair stringers.
For builders used to building stairs, including some clunky simpson hanger for stair stringers and spec'ing something stupid like 3/4" osb sub treads/riser is just wasting our time. Our building inspectors expect anything on the plan to be in the building or a letter from the achitect allowing the change.
While I'm on the stair issue, when I see dumbed-down plans that spec everything it prevents us from improving the design with techniques that gain a little extra room here and there. I've built 36" finished width stairs, when there was plenty of room for 39" stairs. A waste.
Our clients are encouraged to make changes to the design during the build. After they actually see the space being framed it's very common to want to change things a bit. For us designs that have details that allow no room for change are a waste of time. Instead of minimizing joist depth with a half dozen load bearing walls in the basement or first floor, we need space and if it costs a little extra so be it. In the long run costs will often be significantly ofset by simpler changes.
Piffin mentioned that his engineer gives him a variety of options on structural issues and it makes perfect sense. Right now there are a few small windows that are spec'ed with doubled 2x8 headers. In order to use a more energy efficent single LVL it takes a call to the arch, he writes a letter and not on his own time.
My design pet pieves are items that are not easy to visualize so end up in the wrong place on plans. A builder with a good eye for such things will make slight changes as needed, but it's costly for our clients since each deviation has to be accounted for.
It's easy for an architect to forget that good looking interior finish work goes hand in hand with the design and proportions shown on the elevation drawings. Designs with a lack of room for proper trim often forces the finish carp to make concessions that they shouldn't. In our case we work with the arch from day one so our framing will work for the finish style and client prefferences.
Basically, we'd be happy with as few details as possible, lots of open space, lots of options, and a good looking exterior and functional interior.
As far as dimensions go, unless we know the architect is sharp and his door and widow schedule is realistic, it's useless information to spec anything other than door and window centers.
When we had a draftsperson in house we'd have her produce dimension strings that reflected how we actually lay out walls. How easy it was to simply pull a 100' tape and lay out every window and door RO, wall intersections, etc.
To this day I appreciate dimension strings starting from points that make sense to how we build.
Architects like working with us because they don't have to worry about us doing things behind their back, and because they can leave out a great many details and we'll fill them in with what works and looks the best for the client. Most builders would hate our perfect plans.
Happy holidays
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
When we had a draftsperson in house we'd have her produce dimension strings that reflected how we actually lay out walls. How easy it was to simply pull a 100' tape and lay out every window and door RO, wall intersections, etc.
Were the dimensions detailed in running totals? I'd love that!
blue
Do you not lay out windows and doors to centers first, then corners and tees, and then fill in the blanks? Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
Do you not lay out windows and doors to centers first, then corners and tees, and then fill in the blanks?
With 5 minutes on a Construction Master, it's kind of nice to simply have numbers to transfer from tape to plates.
Then we step back and look at what's there and work through our finish plans and try to anticipate the most likely changes we'll see.
For instance we had a very visible concrete window well for the basement level that was to be lined with cultured stone that would also wrap around the window opening back to the recessed windows. Only three inches were allowed between the side of the window well and window opening, which would only look like an akward bump once the stone was applied rather than a wrap so we moved the window two inches further from the edge of the window well. This also required moving the first floor window so it would stack.
It also impacted the stair layout so we moved the stairs a bit. Moving the stair framing ment moving some footer pads poured under the slab, and pushing a 1st floor bathroom over half a dozen inches which crowded a workshop space. It would have been a problem except we gained more than enough room from another improvement in the original plan. For that one change in the window "trim" we moved an awful lot of that corner of the building around, but it works better, looks better and everyone is happy.
The same attention to fine tuning is given to the rest of the building, taking our finish plans and working backwards. It's virtually impossible for an architect to anticipate all the things we do since we work through the plans forward and back litterally dozens of times over an extended period of time, incorporating the latest changes from the clients at each stage.
Happy holidays.
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
Were the dimensions detailed in running totals? I'd love that!
Yep, it was sweet.
When we layed out footers, all that was on the sheet would be the footers and numbers that agreed 100% with a 100' tape. Very quick.
When it was time to set our ICFs, that's all the plan would have, and again, numbers that our tapes could relate to.
For her it was a piece of cake to take just the layer of the plan we were interested in and have autocad massage it a bit.
:-)
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
Hemi, you definitely have the right ethic. Demolition, envirnomental abatement, building, renovation, reconstruction, specialized and handy man tasks should be a mutual endeavor. Everyone involved working as a team toward a common goal. Too often I've seen things turn, or even start out, adversarial. The focus must be on getting the right job done for your Client, with a fair, clearly defined scope of work for the Contractor(s). Also, as I often work in the puplic realm, "responsible" low bidder's are many times not responsible. And it is very difficult to disqualify them.
Your job is to clearly define the work and protect your Client. Shame on the contractor if the he did not look at all the detail sheets, that's his problem. Just make them clear. If there's something special, don't hide it, include it in the general notes on the first sheet, highlight it in the specification.
That said your job is not to confuse the Contractor, or to take advantage of a Contractor.
And don't contract at a too low price, unless the Contractor stated that he is fully aware of the contract specifications, then ask him again. Get the right job done for your Client.
Like someone said, a pleasure to have someone ask what we need in plans. Thanks.
My answer is "Draw it and dimension it like I'm going to build it." (Yeah, I know, it's hard enough to figure out what your wife is thinking, never mind read a framer's mind.) But anyway, for example, I hate centerline dimensions- there's nothing there.
If I'm doing layout for a window RO, I'm need to know where to put the king, jack and cripple on the left and then on the right, but I don't care where the center is because I'm not going to put anything there.
I want to be able to stretch a 50 ft tape from one end of the plate and mark every stud without moving the dumb end of the tape, so that's how I want you to dimension.
I get alot of plans that are a pain to read when I am framing, I don't need to know where tile is, where outlets and switchs go, it's just information that gets in the way when I am looking for a dimension.
I would like to see just a plan for framing, no switches with squiggly lines to the light, no finished floor furnishings.
Put those on a seperate page. I'll read them when I am doing the stairs.
I vote for Heart framer and finish hammer.
I want to be able to stretch a 50 ft tape from one end of the plate and mark every stud without moving the dumb end of the tape, so that's how I want you to dimension.
Which makes some sense. The problem is the "doing" it, though. Done 'right' those dimensions would "want" to "stack." So, instead of 3-4 'clean' rows of dimensions, it could be 5-6-7, whatever. That could halve the area available to draw the plan in--and a 1/4" plan is much easier to read than an 1/8" (especially after it has been shrunk down on a copier to A or B size).
The other 'gotcha' on running dimensions is that none of the "automated" drafting programs are set up that way--which is a whole problem unto itself, the people using software "smarter" than their drafter.
The "reality" of drawings can be seductive--look, it's exactly 36" wide on my drawing. Even though the finished dimesions, Ros, etc., all vary the least bit from that precise reality. The real "trick" of accurate dimesions is knowing what you are dimensioning--which is tough to get.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
From a surveyor's point of view, all curved concrete, brick, or steel work that must be laid out in the field, should have all curve data present, with a coordinate list, if possible.
Additionally, any structural work should have coordinates available to speed layout by engineering staff. The lists do not necesairly have to be on the plans, but available as a download to data recorders.
Engineering staff usually have to set up their own systems, so a coordinate system tying the entire tract and the structure(s) should be helpful. It should also be tied into your local State Plane Coordinate system for future reference.
Drawings where the stairs were actually given some thought to passing code. Designers seem to think anything goes, there is always something. To narrow, not enough headroom, tread / rise to short, etc.
To add to my earlier thoughts: I want to have complete schedules.
And another thing I think is absolutley crazy is revisions. I am working on a house now that is on its thrid revision set. Something else I notice with a lot of my subs, the guys want to look at the architectural plans to build. They do not want to read the notes. For instance a lighting plan I am working on shows a recess light - no dimension - scales about 2'6" off of a wall, but a note in the margin calls for the light to be centered on an old existing built in hall tree mirror that is an additional 1"6" off of the wall. The electrician would have missed it if I wouldn't have harped - make sure you read the notations. He was pissed. It would have been a call back for him. I told the architect and he said - the notes right there like why am I calling him about it. Being a design build firm I went into it and explained the fields side and him being a good architect listened and considered the fields side. I think what gets missed is the simple concept that architects design for clients but the plans must be drawn for the guys in the field. To the architects defense: I know that they, just like all of us, are pressured to produce. So it all boils down to the frantic pace of modern day building and the profit needed to survive. Even though this note sounds like a gripe, I want everyone to know I work with a group of architects everyday and we have a great relationship and learn from each other all the time.
My experience is that drawings are for three groups of people: the Owner, the bidding and building contractor, and the permit plan reviewer.
The Owner needs to see the Drawings in various stages of project development so they understand what is what, how big is big, what's a door, what's a window, and what's a wall, what's it look like from the inside and outside, where's the light switch, where's the plug, where's the light, etc.
The bidders need to have enought information on to understand what the Owner and Architect have developed, how the Architect and his structural engineer intend to support and span it. Enought information has to be there to be able to compare apples to apples when you have competetive bids.
The permit plan reviewer needs to see that you are complying with code requirements whether the project is in Chicago or Soshoni,Wyoming.
My practice is to have seperate Floor Plans, Mechanical Plans, Electrical Plans. I don't like plans that have everything on one sheet overlaping each other and the dimensions and strutural info.
I also go out into the field to answer questions and to get feedback from the trades. I learn alot from these site visits and discussions with you guys in the field and use that info in my designs and drawings.
I don't like plans that have everything on one sheet overlaping each other
Aw, c'mon, e'rybody knows y'don't need all that "stuff"--why lookit 'ere, see, they'kn build an entire house from this one sheet and these "ellie-vayshuns" thangs . . .
I know of a national builder down in houston that "gets by" on just four sheets, a cover sheet, floor and site plan in one; structural plans; elevations. Why do they do that? 'Cause thats all the plans reviewers require. Two story? No sweat, scale the plans down by half so they fit on the page. Complete electrical switch layout; ceiling heights, room finishes and changes, dimensions, room tags and labels--all mashed together. That structural/framing plan is fun, too--how anyone seperates the slab info from all the framing info is beyond me (and it shows when they frame).
Gee, you draw the plan as a model. You make up a page with that mdel in it. You then save a layer filter for the page as that page requires. This is so hugely difficult? Apparently, it is. (Probably harder when a company is hiring $8-9/hr "drafters" for their "design department" . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Excellent point on the three groups Joe. Also on the MEP and the structural drawings as seperate pages.
Hemi,
I do not have time to read all the post, and someone may have posted these links, but if not this info may be helpful.
There is an organization American Institute of Building Designers (AIBD) http://www.aibd.org
They have a certification program in connection with National Counsil of Building Design Certification (NCBDC). http://www.ncbdc.com
This is the page link to info from NCBDC detailing minimum plan standards. The explanaton of standards is pretty through.
http://www.ncbdc.com/minimum_plan_standards.htm
If the contractor doesn't look at the drawings, he needs to learn what everything means and it's his problem, not yours. If he doesn't want to learn the conventional way to represent the design on paper, you need to get another contractor or he needs to suck it up and learn this. The rest of the world uses what you give him and he just ignores it so he can waste your time with unnecessary phone calls. If he knew how to read blueprints, he would never need to call you and ask what everything means.
Would you let this slide if he asked you to read the contract documents to him? There's really no difference, IMO.
Just curious but who didn't learn drafting formally- you or him? The symbols have been standardized for a reason. Wall sections are there so they'll be built to spec (and code in some cases) and the same applies to roof plans, framing plans, structural details, etc.
The ideal set of drawings is the one that most of the people on that job can read, and in this case, there seems to be only one who can't and you want to cater to him instead of having him learn to read the prints.
If they want you to show the furniture, do it on a separate set of plans with little other info to clutter things up. The HO doesn't need to see the dimensions. If you're not doing this in CAD, I suspect you're spending a lot of time in making changes to the drawings.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Edited 12/15/2006 1:29 am by highfigh
Plan Basics
Framers should be able to frame the walls of any given house from the floor plan. Ceiling heights, window header heights, floor heights, RO’s, stairs, etc., should be all on the same page, and reflected in the details and elevations.
I prefer the dimensioning conventions of the local area. All floor plans/walls are marked either out-to-out, or out-to-in, and only wholes and halfs (inches) used. (no quarters, or less,…no in/out-to-center stuff) If something is centered, (doors, windows, RO’s, etc…) draw it centered w/o any dimensions.
If you make a change, make it to the entire plan. Don’t change elevations and forget to change the floor plan information, or vise-versa. Don’t draw two different houses on the same set of plans.
Use dimensions that work/add-up. Don’t spec doors in halls that have to be modified to fit.
If you get a question/questions from your carpenters because the plans are lacking, or incongruent, then add/change the necessary info on the next one, and try to not make the same mistakes twice. All possible questions should have answers easily found on the plans and notes. (Not on a cell phone. Include your phone number on the plan anyway.)
“The key to clear understandings, is a clear set of plans”
When it comes to plans, “A job well begun, is half done.”
Edited 12/15/2006 9:32 am ET by MrJalapeno
I like to put lots of notations like "V.I.F. (Verify in Field) or "TYP.".....
Just kidding, I think those two notes, although sometimes proper, have become the top two architect copout notations seen on plans today.
Hemi, draw your plans according to standard practice, and focus on being thorough. Don't listen to any crap about giving less information because it "isn't necessary" I do agree that any one plan should only contain the pertinant info as Joe Architect pointed out. Framing goes on the structurals, furniture on a furniture plan, electrical on an electrical plan. Rememer, it's your liability, and if so if it's not in the plans, and it gets missed, it's your azz. And if there is information on another sheet, cross reference everything well with page numbers so it's easily found and not missed.
I dimension according to standard practice, and I make sure to dimension everything, and try to dimension in continuous strings that are completed from one end of the building to the other. I also give overall dimensions where possible for every room and the building as a whole so framers don't need to add them all up.
Edited 12/15/2006 10:22 am ET by xosder11
>Rememer, it's your liability, and if so if it's not in the plans, and it gets missed, it's your azz.Here's one from the past that I ran into. Had a complicated curved footer. I took the CAD length of the polyline and listed that on prints (along with all dimensions needed for layout, of course). Builder estimates based on that. He builds it and tells me he needed a number of extra yards of concrete and by tape, it was 10% longer than I listed. He was kinda mad at me. (I offered to pay, but he didn't want anything.) Turns out that the CAD software had a bug in calcing the length of polylines! It was close enough that I couldn't eyeball a difference--no easy way to tell it was wrong without taking the curve to a different CAD program--but far enough wrong to matter for estimating.We rely on CAD....what if it has a non-obvious bug?!
You use Vectorworks right? We are on version 11, and I found alot of bugs with it. Good program overall, but we are on Macs, and I think alot of problems resulted from teh fact that Apple revamped thier OS extensivly at the same time that Vectorworks came out with a brand new release. There were problems with the way VW was running w/ "Quartz"(whatever that is). Anyway, angled lines were showing up thicker than horizintal ones, and they were printing funny. I was on the phone w/ apple and Nemewhatever, and they had their engineers talking to one another.In the end, I think VW bowed to Apple and reengineered version 12 to run better w os
They had (and still have) a lot of polyline problems. I routinely "add" circles, and the result is usually not what it should be. Gotta undo and add them in different groups or sequences.
That happened not in software, but in one of the Intel math processors a few years ago. It was the 80387 IIRC. A couple entries in a lookup table at the far edge of the die were getting smudged, it only showed up very rarely.
-- J.S.
so framers don't need to add them all up.
I agree.
blue