- Thread starter Keith 66
- Start date
Revs1972
Member
- Messages
- 1,847
- Location
- Torquay, UK
Thanks for posting that question, I had no idea you could do that.
Had a quick look online and it all looks pretty straightforward .
Had architects in the past who have refused to send DWG version of their drawings (god knows why) , so at least there is now a work around
Had a quick look online and it all looks pretty straightforward .
Had architects in the past who have refused to send DWG version of their drawings (god knows why) , so at least there is now a work around
If you find a raster you need converted search for vector magic they have stand alone and online versions. Fully automated or you can adjust what you need to convert them.
Probably so you cant alter the drawings easily without converting , but allow you to read or print them.
Can't speak for your architects, but it's a common practice in engineering, we won't send you natives files of anything. Several reasons, most importantly is that we're legally liable for the design, and if you only have a pdf copy, you can't change anything without our knowledge, it avoids design changes etc, which they can not be held responsible for or endorse. Basically self preservation / legalese.. other reasons include commercial, we do the work, and you go somewhere else with our design, etc...
certainly I won't send anyone any natives formats, only PDF, up to and including approved for construction, then at the end of the contract, we'll provide you with all the as built docs in native format, after official handover / acceptance.
certainly I won't send anyone any natives formats, only PDF, up to and including approved for construction, then at the end of the contract, we'll provide you with all the as built docs in native format, after official handover / acceptance.
Not sure that argument holds much water - if you've a pdf of a drawing, its very easy to re-create the component - after all, unless the pdf has all the info on, you can't either quote properly to make it, or indeed make it. Even if some dimensions are missing, even a pdf can be scaled to work them out.
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,590
- Location
- devon, uk
I generally send out raster screen grabs of designs.
If it's someone I trust, I'll send the cad file, but in most cases, for me, time had gone into the cad, and I'd like that time to be compensated for in the sale.
If someone is sending vector pdfs instead of the native cad, for the same reason, they are either showing their own ignorance, or assuming ignorance on the clients side (which I'm sure works in the cast majority of cases!)
Obviously I'm only working in 2d.
If it's someone I trust, I'll send the cad file, but in most cases, for me, time had gone into the cad, and I'd like that time to be compensated for in the sale.
If someone is sending vector pdfs instead of the native cad, for the same reason, they are either showing their own ignorance, or assuming ignorance on the clients side (which I'm sure works in the cast majority of cases!)
Obviously I'm only working in 2d.
agreed, it's not infallible, and yes you can "adapt and modify" PDF, to make it look like an original, or even copy direct to make a part. There are a lot of these types of software now. You'll always get those who try it on. That's why as part of the companies QC we, (and most engineering companies will be the same) have to always keep controlled copies of everything so in the event of an issue we have total traceability, electronic signatures, master files working copies, red line mark ups etc etc.
like I said its our neck in court in the event of a problem, so we have to protect ourselves. Giving out native files would be uncontrollable.
if it's just someone scanning / vectorising a part to duplicate that one thing, but it they change the design and claim it's theirs or there's an incident, totally different discussion. that's why we never issue them in native or uncontrolled formats.
like I said its our neck in court in the event of a problem, so we have to protect ourselves. Giving out native files would be uncontrollable.
if it's just someone scanning / vectorising a part to duplicate that one thing, but it they change the design and claim it's theirs or there's an incident, totally different discussion. that's why we never issue them in native or uncontrolled formats.
Thanks for the info folks, The pdf is a free download of a laser cut hurdy gurdy, its on Thingiverse & on you tube as Nerdy gurdy, comes as a pdf file. We use Techsoft 2d design at which seems to be the most common drawing programme in schools. Dont have autocad. Our laser cutter was built by Laserite & uses its own software which only likes dxf files.
All sorted, used Zamzar, uploaded file & downloaded converted file in 2 mins. Have to wait a week till i get back to work to use the cutter to see if its ok.
Editing is required as the original drawing has all parts nested on 740 x 450mm sheets to fit a laser with a bed that size, Our laser has a 600x400 bed so i have to break the parts apart & re arrange them before i can cut them.
Editing is required as the original drawing has all parts nested on 740 x 450mm sheets to fit a laser with a bed that size, Our laser has a 600x400 bed so i have to break the parts apart & re arrange them before i can cut them.
rcx132
Philip
- Messages
- 3,034
- Location
- London, UK
Mcdavid, if someone modifies your design and the modification causes a problem then you would not be liable. Though there could still be a legal battle as you try to prove if the fault was due to the modification or due to the part of the design your company did.
The only real reasons I've ever seen for not sharing source files are essentially commercial reasons.
"...if someone modifies your design and the modification causes a problem then you would not be liable. Though there could still be a legal battle as you try to prove if the fault was due to the modification or due to the part of the design your company did."
exactly, you're totally right, we wouldn't be held liable presuming we can prove they modified it, that's exactly why we have so many control measures in place, more for accountability, that anything else, as you say to avoid the legal battles. In real terms we're not that really affected, because of the size of the projects we do, we're more design of systems for complete projects than individual components, so our project document controllers monitor everything any but nonetheless we have the same methodology to apply, "Always cover your assets".....
exactly, you're totally right, we wouldn't be held liable presuming we can prove they modified it, that's exactly why we have so many control measures in place, more for accountability, that anything else, as you say to avoid the legal battles. In real terms we're not that really affected, because of the size of the projects we do, we're more design of systems for complete projects than individual components, so our project document controllers monitor everything any but nonetheless we have the same methodology to apply, "Always cover your assets".....
rcx132
Philip
- Messages
- 3,034
- Location
- London, UK
Trouble with source code if that the developer has usually invested time in code which he then re-uses on many projects to get them done quickly and competitively. Developer is then handing that code over and it could be obtained by his competitors. There's also licensing issues, if a developer is reusing code and handing it to clients then who owns it.
@MCKDAVID and @rtbcomp what do you guys do then?
rtbcomp
Moderator
- Messages
- 18,574
- Location
- Sheffield UK
That is very true, it can be got round to some extent by having common routines in separate modules and keeping those secret.
I'm retired, but did a bit of bespoke programming in the heady days of DOS and QBASIC. DOS is dead, Long Live DOS!
