How to respond to engineer's AutoCAD-based criticisms of VW exports

[Christiaan]

Below is a message I just received from a mechanical engineer. It's the first time I've received such a message and I'd like to take advantage of it because usually we don't get this sort of insight or feedback from engineers.

I'd appreciate any opinions on how to respond appropriately. Basically I'd like to know if there's any way we can adjust our drawings to help them out, before we go pointing out that AutoCAD is not the only kid on the block.

With regard to walls turning off along with dimensions, I'm not sure what's happening there because the walls and dimensions are definitely on different Classes. Could dimension associations be causing this behavior I wonder?

With regard to not being able to turn hatches off, how do we help them there? The only thing I can think of is to send them a separate set of DWGs optimized for using as a background, with the wall components turned off.

I had hoped to be able to issue our updated drainage layouts for Block A this week but we have encountered problems with the latest building plans as supplied to us. Our CAD Manager, Richard Main, will call you tomorrow to discuss ways in which we may be able resolve the situation. However, in advance of that, let me summarise the problem as he has outlined it to me.

Firstly, when the drawing is opened with AutoCAD, the dialogue box below is displayed.

After selecting the ?Continue Opening DWG File?, the drawings do open and all appears to be ok, however, when trying to switch off various elements of the drawing, it is evident that the drawings have not been created in the usual AutoCAD manner.

Problems arising:

? Layering

In some instances is inconsistent. When switching off some dimensions, others remain visible. Switch these off, and other elements (walls) switch off with them.

? Walls, Furniture & Fittings

Hatch patterns have been created for the make-up of the walls on the same layers as the lines above them. This applies to all hatched wall elements making it impossible to switch off the unnecessary detail which is of no relevance to the drawings we are creating and only makes the drawing messy and confusing.

A similar approach has been taken with the furniture and fittings. In many cases, a bed for example, a block has been created, or even a block containing numerous secondary blocks. The line work has been drawn and a solid hatch/shading applied over the whole bed shape again on the same layer. Whilst this works in many cases as a useful graphical tool highlighting certain aspects of the drawing it again makes for a very messy and confusing base drawing for us to use due to the fact that we are not able to switch off the hatching/shading.

? Other

It has been noticed that many symbols have been created with a solid background to them which blocks out any detail which may lay behind them. Whilst this can be quite useful, it does make our work more difficult as we have to ensure that all linework, text, leaders symbols etc do not pass behind any of these but instead lay over the top. This is easy enough to do with the ?draworder? command, but does require considerably more checking.

Hopefully we will be able to find a quick way of resolving these problems.

Regards,

Edited February 18, 2010 by Christiaan

[VincentCuclair]

Ha ha that's a good one : ..." in the usual AutoCAD manner." Is there such a thing? Is that a good thing?

- Tell him to check the box in the dialog box and stop worrying!

- Dimensions I can't answer for, could be the associations as you say.

- Hatches and fills can be exported to their own separate classes (acad layers).

- Symbols and groups can be Decomposed, this perhaps solves the furniture and fittings problem.

Attach one of the files I'll have a look at the dimensions.....btw I have ACAD 2007.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Vincent C

[Ozzie]

I am just wondering exactly what detail he requires from your end

are you sending unnecessary information?

are you viewing the dwg file in an AutoCAD viewer prior to sending to him

interoperability - blah

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ozzie

[Assembly]

What specific information is required by the consultant. Does a consultants who is doing drainage layouts require information about beds in the first place?. It will be much easier to manage your end to strip out what is not useful...i hate getting ACAD files filled with lots of layers from consultant. ( I have equal complaints about getting drawings filled with other office layer systems).

Suggest On EXPORT you

Do not export invisible classes.

Do not export 2D Fills or hatch patterns.

Do Export line weights to colours.

This will thin out the DXF to have only the relevant info for your consultant.

[Christiaan]

I am just wondering exactly what detail he requires from your end

For his task at hand he needs underlay information for his own drawings.

- Hatches and fills can be exported to their own separate classes (acad layers).

Perfect, thanks.

Symbols and groups can be Decomposed, this perhaps solves the furniture and fittings problem.

So I'd have to ungroup everything before exporting? He'll be lucky if I go that far.

[Ozzie]

What version of AutoCAD are they using?

Can they import Pdfs?

Do you need his information later to include in your drawings?

If he only needs underlay and you do not need it back for yours just turn off all unnecessary information, duplicate file and ungroup the lot

[VincentCuclair]

Symbols and groups can be Decomposed, this perhaps solves the furniture and fittings problem.

So I'd have to ungroup everything before exporting? He'll be lucky if I go that far.

No, there's a box you can check in the dwg export dialog which does this.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

If he only needs underlay and you do not need it back for yours just turn off all unnecessary information, duplicate file and ungroup the lot

That is a lot of extra work....... better they figure a way out themselves....remember the alternativ is still to send paper drawings!

Edited February 18, 2010 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

Just a thought CHristiaan, if you decompose symbols and groups...I don't know if this includes dimensions, if it does he perhaps wants to keep these in tact?!

[Christiaan]

No, there's a box you can check in the dwg export dialog which does this.

Appears only to work with Design Layers and it also says "3D symbols and Groups" so presumably won't effect our 2D symbols.

I think I'm probably best to create a set of 'background' DWGs independent of our formal drawings with 2D fills turned off altogether.

[QfanatiQ]

This is interesting.

I would have thought he might not be fully fluent in Acad, but then a message like this worries many people.

I have only had issues bringing dwg's in, never out.

Layers (classes) should export fine. HE should be abel to turn these things off himself and quicker than you can in VW if he uses the express tools. He can then make a map port to handle your drawings in teh same way each time AS LONG as your company follows the same classes etc

I have Acad 2010, if you are able/want to and can, post the file i can have a look to see if it is the end user or the file.

I am back on VW 2008 as 2010 has become very unstable. SO if file format different, save back to 2008

Cheers......Q

[Diamond]

The reality is that in Australia many (I say many, not all) consultants whinge about not being supplied drawings that they can simply get to work on! Lazy, lazy, lazy!!

I suspect it is the same in this case. I give PDF's as well so they can see exactly what we see, beyond that, no more is normally needed.

As architects we can help them as much as we can, but they should be drawing their own drawings using ours as a reference. They often get paid considerably more for doing considerably less! Don't stand for their crap!

Julian Carr has written 2 tech notes on this at;

http://www.ozcad.com.au/support/techsupport.html

Minor rant over!