I grew up learning drafting on the board and almost immediately, CAD. I never did develop a personal lettering style nor the ability to letter with great consistency. I certainly didn't get around to board drafting drawings to look good. On one hand, it's a shame. On the other hand, I learned a heck of a lot (and stood out) by learning the details of the CAD systems and how to get the CAD to answer as many questions as possible. I do admire manual drafting work especially when it has a bit of artistic flair and tidy appearance.
dik said:
I think having a dedicated checker is 'a thing of the past' at most places.
It can be, and quality and delivery usually sucks. It's pretty easy to economically justify a dedicated checker or peer review step by doing a trial. Any error that leaves Engineering usually costs multiples of what it would have taken to stop it. Whatever the checker catches is a savings. There should be plenty of 'what it costs' data out there unless your company is devoid of a functional quality system, in which case that also also a major deficiency.
I've not used a drafting style manual before. I've seen some things mentioned in obsolete company standards but they have been ignored for some years. Choosing one makes a lot of sense and gives you drafters a fair play to get it right on the first go, so that you remain a checker and not an editor. I was lucky that in my first year one of our senior mechanical engineers started as a machinist and had really great feedback on how to improve the readability of a machining drawing. That stuff adds up.
Getting into the mechanics - since CAD systems really are configured minimally anymore, I judge a drawing by several things:
- Legibility - did the drafter provide adequate spacing between dimensions, use an appropriate view scale, and reasonable line weights?
- White space - did the drafter use an appropriate page size and quantity of sheets? Or did they cram things into every available space and make the entire thing a confusing, context-less mess?
- Isometric views - they're almost free now. Give me one or two.
- 11x17 - for C/D size drawings, I prefer that they be legible when reduced to 11x17. I might need to squint a bit but having the 11x17 option is usually a benefit.
- Cross-section hatching - I prefer to angle/pattern the hatching in varying ways so that touching components do not have the same cross hatching. Most CAD systems require the user to go through this piece by piece and I prefer when the drafter does exactly that.
- Company standards - there should be consistent fonts, font sizes, dimension styles, line styles, title block, tolerance preferences, etc. It just makes everyone more efficient and once it's set in the CAD configuration it's mostly forgotten.
- Black and white. Get that multi-color shaded garbage out of here. In my world it adds little value and makes copying, conversions, and archival much more difficult.
- Clear, complete technical definition. Don't add redundant dimensions, leave out dimensions, or detail in a note what could be shown with a view and dimensions.
David
