The text plotted off on a HP Office Jet gets a little thick. It doesn't make sense to keep things more difficult than they need to be just because that is what they did in the past.įrom Mike Casey: We use 3/32" as a standard but I struggle with reducing from E size to B size which we do on P&ID drawings. Besides, you have to use a multiple of 0.0625. I agree that 1/16 is too small, especially for half size prints. I would rather use a multiple of 0.1 than 0.09375.Įxample: What is 64 multiplied by 0.09375? What is 64 multiplied by 0.1? Which one can you do easily in your head? It is easier to figure out what the proper text height should be. Johnson: Concerning the text height issue, I think it makes more sense to use 0.1 for a text height. Replies for the week of April 4-10, 2005:įrom David L. Thank you to all readers who took the time to share their perspectives. Read on to peruse the 21 initial replies (mostly unedited), preceded by the seven, more recent replies, including those that offer exceptions to the rule. Then we received additional e-mail the following week with feedback from seven more readers. Newsline received a total of 21 replies initially from the field, and the consensus is that 3/32" should remain the standard. Doyle asked for feedback on industry standards for text height in construction documents, saying his officemates were questioning the need to maintain the 3/32" standard.
In the April 4 edition of Cadalyst Newsline e-mail newsletter ( click here for archives or to subscribe), reader Timothy C. Updated: Standard Text Height in Construction Drawings Should Remain 3/32” 10 Apr, 2005 Cadalyst Newsline readers respond to query about new standard
0 kommentar(er)
