Black Background



stylish"
I have been doing cad since 1985 beginning with VersaCAD. The black background made it easier to see the drawing. When I switched to AutoCAD about 1994, I found the screen could be any color I wanted. I found white to be "glary" and more difficult to distinguish the drawing and dimensions. I always use the black background now and it is just easier. When I receive a file to modify from a customer, most of them have the white background and for some unknown reason, those cad operators just love to use yellow and cyan. I think most of it comes from inexperienced cad operators hired just out of school and cheaply. Printing in yellow and cyan is useless. It is pitiful to read and I change everying immediately. The finished file goes to a new customer. I believe in working smart not hard.
Have a great day!!!!! Shirley Plano, TX
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree about the yellow and cyan. They seem to think that the colors of legal pads are magically right for every use. Paper is not a monitor and I realize that that same statement can be applied to white backgrounds. However I wonder if you ever tried using white with the brightness turned down. Many beginners set the brightness at max, which on many CRT monitors caused "blooming" which blurred the lines. I use white but I have turned brightness way down to about 60% of max. Sharpness is not an issue since the LCD has a native resolution, and that is the resolution I use
S. Smith wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
0&DocumentID!0
You'll probably find much more info if you Google it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree with you as far as a WYSIWYG (white) screen for drawing. In all of the years I've been associated with computing, I've never heard a complaint from anyone about "eystrain" from Word, WordPerfect, Excel, Access, CorelDraw, PhotoPaint, PhotoShop, or any other WYSIWYG application, other than AutoCAD. Why are drafters more prone to "eyestrain" than secretaries, authors, spreadsheeters, illustrators and other computer users? Perhaps they haven't heard of the "brightness" or "contrast" controls, or perhaps they still work in darkened rooms where screen glare is much more obvious than in a well-lighted workplace. In any case, we've *always* used a white or light gray background, and in the past 20+ years, no one here has ever complained about "eyestrain" except when trying to see those yellow or cyan lines on drawings from a "black screen shop."
As for tick marks, it's simply a matter of style. We use them because they're the accepted mode in the architectural fields. They're available, so why not? I *do* however, take exception to those who insist on applying "squiggle" or some other phony technique to make CAD drawings look "hand-drawn." In my book this would be like Random House publishing books in a longhand font to make them look "hand-written." ___

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I convinced one local architect to switch to arrows after I caught 3 separate occurrences of dimension strings snapping onto other strings in one drawing. And it was tougher for him to switch because he uses a different cad program specifically oriented to architects that didn't have arrows built in as an option. But because he is a big promoter of that product he got the software company to patch the software for him in relatively short order.
Paul Turvill wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As for tick marks, I personally don't care. My former workplace used arrows, my current one uses tickmarks, and I've had no difficulty with either. You just have to have a competent person doing the dimensioning. Either one has issues if the person doesn't pay attention to snap points and legibility of the final drawing.
That being said, there *is* value in consistency of standards. I always try to make every drawing that I do for any particular employer consistent. No matter who is doing the drawings, they should all look like the same person did them. Once the company has set the standards, there should be a really good reason to change them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In a previous post Beatle wrote...

Exactly! Poor quality workmanship leads to errors no matter how good the program or standards. It is possible to turn a high quality product AND be fast if you know what you are doing.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Simple really, those users aren't focusing in on the intersection of the two strokes that make up a tee or other character ... When I'm in other software, even sketchup, I'm not concentrating on small areas to the same detail as I am in cad, zooming factor making little diffence... Ron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul Turvill wrote:

.........
been cadding for about 20 years. I have tried a white or grey background half a dozen times. color schemes that look better on a black screen don't have the same appeal on a grey background. I could not come up with a color scheme that satisfied others when I worked in an office. so I followed the herd.
now that I could do whatever I want, I like the black background, but I admit it may just be constant use has rewired my preferences.......
BLACK BY POPULAR DEMAND!
and make as many layers as you like, but I like to keep the number of colors down to about 10 on the screen. it's the way my mind looks at the data on the screen. has got to be a learned thing at this point.
fun topic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

colors are more distinct on a black background, and a black background causes less eye strain.

arrowheads are not "architectural". Archtecture is an art, and the finished product must be as artistic architecturally and it is technical. The artistic goal of a set of plans is to have it look as close to hand drawn as possible, not look like a technical drawing.

you'll listen to valid explanations only if they agree with what you said apparently.
jojo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jojo wrote:

ooohhh, passion invoked.
I used to do mech / elec dwgs for THE MAN. now I do "architectural" for the wife.......
I used to cuss dimension strings on my technical dwgs, files we got from arch firms, because the arch could not find his rear with both hands. I mean, his strings did not add up and I wanted my ductwork to FIT.
( if you are an architect, and you are reading this, you are FAR MORE SAVY ON THE COMPUTER THAN 99% OF THE ARCHITECTS I WORKED "WITH" )
now I seldom draw ductwork, but when I do, my dimension strings are things of beauty. not only do the ALL WAYS add up, no diddling with one number without moving the wall it was tied to, but I keep in mind the damned framer and how he is likely to be laying out the walls.
the thing he is measuring FROM better be there FIRST........ construction sequence wise.
and my dimension strings GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH whenever possible. I don't make you look for the right string to find the number you want. I don't make the framers THINK, that's what I get paid to do, and frankly, I am better at it.
that being said, I like tick marks for dimensions and arrow heads for leaders.
I am unable to conceive dimensions snapping one on top of the other. sounds like sloppy drafting to me. if brevity is the soul of wit, then minimal dimensions are the framer's nirvana. but (PREGO) it's in there.
BUT IT COULD JUST BE THAT I HAVE NOT WALKED THE MILE IN YOUR SHOES. so don't take it personal.
think I need a beer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks ; )
--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not at all. Those simply aren't reasons that have any validity. If you say that ticks are more effective in small areas because they don't intrude, or they make the drawing more legible, then it is a valid reason. Saying I want to be an artist rather than a professional is not a valid reason. I'm just used to it that way is a cop-out. Why use cad? Use a drawing board with a Mayline and a pencil. Weren't you used to it that way at one point? The set of drawings that an architect produces are supposed to be accurate and functional. Art does not have functionality. That is where you miss the point. Good schools of architecture are affiliated with engineering departments. The bad ones are part of the fine arts department. (Unless you think that non-functional monuments are architecture) To quote Le Corbusier "Form follows function" and if you forget about the function, no body will build your artistic form.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
once you go black... :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't know whether its 'most' any more, but black = all screen guns are off
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But that is on a crt. On an LCD there are no guns, and most people are switching to LCDS. In fact it is virtually impossible to buy a high quality large screen CRT suitable for cad work.
Troppo wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Black background so I do not have a glaring white monitor burning my retinas. Enough eye strain staring at it for hours on end without it being white! Black seems to be the least obnoxious to my eyes anyway.
Brian

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Black for me, less strain, Ticks when doing building work and arrowheads when doing Mechanical. Zoom in to make sure snaps are where they should be and take not of Z position carefully when working in 3D. It isn't really rocket science.
JD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050804070503030702060301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
JG a crit :

I use a light grey background, since 1990. i still have 10 and 8 for my eyes. I prefer light grey it's WYSIWYG, and also because it's much beautifull to see ! y don't want to spend 35 years of my life watching a borring black background ...
What makes damage to eyes isn't the color of the screen, it is refresh rate : Check it, it *MUST BE OVER 75Hz *Many time, when i work on someone else's workstation, i see *it's working at 60hz* ! Even on brand new computer ! Recently, i experienced a linux Kunbuntu installation, and the default refresh rate is 60 Hz, and you cannot change it with a graphical interface ! It is very dangerous for eyes !

I come from mecanic, now i work in water equipement and pipes: i use both methods for my drawing : - For the concrete structure, i use ticks and centimeter units. - For the pipes, i use arrow and millimeter units.
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PowerClic: http://www.g-eaux.com/powerclic/explorer/english.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Force of habit, or bad monitor settings. I have long used a white background with refresh at 85 Hz and brightness turned down. I can work all day with no eye strain or fatigue. The eyes can resolve detail much better and easier with dark markings on a light background. Imagine reading all your printed drawings with white or colored ink on black paper....

You are right, and arrows show the direction of every dimension, ticks do not. However, even if done entirely on a computer, architects want to show they are are practicing art, not engineering. Maybe some would prefer arrows, but they risk the bad reaction of clients or other architects. But if you get a drawing file made with ticks, you can change the dim style and see arrowheads.
--
Tim Skene

PRO Menu - The Productivity Toolbox for AutoCAD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.