"Do Not Scale"

[hvacpiper]

This may be the wrong forum, if so ,my apologies.

Does having the note "Do not scale" on building plan drawings, exempt the architect from accuracy within the plan view?

For example,one or two rooms on a floor are dimensioned out in detail sheets and called out as typical. When dimensioning the plan view dwg's in autocad, discrepancies are found between the "typical details" and rooms that are supposed to conform to the "typical". When these issues were brought up to the architect, they said "Your not supposed to scale the drawings , build to the detail sheets". Which I believe is jus another way of saying, "we're too lazy to fix our drawings, just use this little part that we think is right"

Which leads to another question I have, would pulling dimensions in autocad even be considered "scaling"?

I know the history of the note "do not scale" goes back to varying sizes of drawing reproduction and trying to get dimensions to the fraction of an inch, on eighth scale drawings--with a rusty tape measure. But......Shouldn't this note be obsolete in the digital age?

 

[ctopher]

I have had this argument for the past few years. In the mechanical world, I stopped calling out scale on drawings. The dimensions and 3D model drive machining the part.
But, I have created arch drawings. A lot of these drawings need actual scale because the contractors will sometimes use them. I'm sure they too are moving away from scale.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks '15
SolidWorks Legion

 

[JNieman]

Especially in the structural/architectural/hvac world, things are immensely "simplified" on plan views for the sake of expediency and for drawing clarity. Things are left off, shown at incorrect thicknesses, etc. All so that things are reusable and look clearer on paper.

In my experience doing structural design for architects, details always override whatever is in the plan view. The architect sometimes makes their plans before knowing beam sizes. This definitely affects their ceiling plans at times, and their floor plans other times, if the columns are larger than expected, requiring a larger area to be furred out along the wall.

One architect drew their walls in Autocad with 4 lines. One to represent the stud-thickness, and the other to represent the wall finish thickness (drywall, for instance). They were MOSTLY good at keeping 4" walls 4" thick and 6" walls 6" thick, but then you get into the discussion of whether or not it should be 3.5" thick or 4" thick for a 2x4 wall. What about drywall? 1/2" gyp board shows 1/4" on plan. 5/8" gyp board shows 1/2" ? Should the contractor go by the size in Autocad or should he go by the spec sheet, finish schedules, or w/e the architect uses?

Details trump plans. Plan views are "birds eye views" of the area, and the little things require a detail.

I wouldn't say the architect is being lazy. Lazy or efficient is subjective and entirely dependent upon whoever is downstream. In the age of BIM software, revisions to finish schedules automatically update plan views and models (or they should... *cough*) so you ideally never have to worry about wall thicknesses not matching the schedules, or your wall-to-wall sq footage being off. But if you're dealing with an architect still using 'vanilla' Autocad, then the work still requires a little more thought and a little less subservient obedience to the BIM data.

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

 

[KENAT]

If the architect has the note "Do not scale" then I'd say his a$$ is asbestos.

Don't get me wrong, it may well not be the most efficient way overall etc. but he didn't lie or mislead you.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​