Uniform Drawing System?

[RodCole]

Curious how many Chief Architect users are setting up their Drawing Sheets according to the UDS standards?  I am using parts of it myself, but there are some things such as the sheet type numbers that seem a bit redundant to me.  I suppose that is mostly because I use a code in the camera callout that does pretty much the same thing.

 

Also interested in knowing if you are using the auto numbering feature in Layout, or are you manually numbering the pages.  I like using the auto numbering feature in X6, but it does not really lend itself to inserting pages according the UDS conventions.  I can see some advantages to being able to insert pages with a dot extention, but that has not really been much of an issue for me so far.  Just need to be carefull setting up the sheets from the outset.

 

I am also a bit puzzeled as to how to implement the revisions according to the UDS standards since any change to the model would potentially effect all existing views.  Seems like the UDS is geared primarily for 2D standards, with a little 3D thrown in for interest.

 

Kind of muddeling my way through this now since I am revamping a few settings in my Layouts.

 

Edit:  I just did a quick test of the dot extension page numbering convention using Chief X6 and it seems to work.  Probably need to add a note to self in the Title section so I know what it matches up to when the auto numbering changes.  But good to know it works.  If anyone has experience with this feature please add a few comments about how this has been working out for you.  Thanks

[lbuttery]

Rod:

 

I've been on this forum since 2004 and have read every post

 

I've never seen mention of the UDS before

 

when starting I scoped some of the CAD standards and AIA standards etc

but never went down that road

 

Lew

[Richard_Morrison]

Rod,

My personal opinion is that the UDS probably lends itself better to projects that are non-residential, larger, and have numerous disciplines. I have tried this in the past, but it makes for kind of weird numbering if the sets are small. Chief's auto-numbering works pretty well for the A-1, S-1, C-1, L-1, etc. type of sets, which is what you'd expect to see in the residential world, and it's pretty easy to insert layout sheets, and have the cameras automatically update the layout sheet number. (I'm looking forward to a more complete solution from Chief for references, though.) Also, nothing wrong with A-1.1, A-1.2, etc., followed by a single A-2, where you want to keep all of the floor plans on the A-1 sheets, for example.

 

However, for classifying detail drawings in a library, I like the UniFormat system a lot. Most details don't work well in the CSI format since there are often multiple numbers where they could reside.

[RodCole]

Chief does do referencing, just not oob "Out of Box".  Chief's camera callouts will reference anything that you want, so long as you go to the trouble of setting it up.  Not so sure I want them to change anything.  What we have works, they just need to make working with what we have a little easier.

 

There are two basic things that have me taking another look at how my Layout Sheets are set up.  One is to better organize how I have my referencing set up.  Still working through that.  The other is to see how, or maybe better if, I can set my drawing sheets up to industry standards while using X6's automated layout features.

 

Since I could not find industry standard conventions for live 3D views much less how it relates to CA I set about making my own setup.  As I am sure most Chief users are familiar with.  I still would like to keep my drawing sheets at least somewhat recognizable for those familiar with UDS and other supposed leading standards.

 

Richard, if you don't mind, could you fill us in a bit on the UniFormat system, and the CSI format as well.  What you like and don't like about these as it relates to CA.  Classifying detail drawings is something that I am still working on since my goal is to use a two character code a dash and a two digit code for the top line of the camera callout.  I think I have it, but it would be good to see other existing standards to compare to.

[Richard_Morrison]

Sure. I think CSI works pretty well for classifying individual elements, like roofing. So it's good for identifying spec sections. (e.g. 07310 for Asphalt Shingles.) BTW, I'm still using the 16 division CSI MasterFormat scheme, rather than the 50 division scheme that's now current, which I think is overkill for residential.  However, when you have a detail like an Eave, which might include roofing, gutter, framing, siding, etc., it's hard to put a single CSI number to it. Uniformat deals in grouped elements. (like Shell or Substructure or Interiors), so you could have the detail as B1022-01. Uniformat has different "levels" of granularity, so B=shell; B10=superstructure; B1020=roof construction; B1022=pitched roofs. [This last is a "level 4" classification] More information at uniformat.com. This is how it might be stored in your detail library, but when it goes on the sheet, you can call it any number you want.