@unknownuser said:

E size in U.S. is standard at 30"X42". D size is 24"x36". E size is a total pain in the field. D is much more manageable. These days I just use my iPad in the field.

Don't wanna be a pest ... but to be clear, there are umpteen paper-format standard sets, globally:
DIN (German), ISO, JIS, "Architectural," and then the ANSI (American National Standards Institute).

Excusing all but the architectural "standards," and the ANSI standards, we have the following:

A R C H I T E C T U R A L [pre:3i755aoo]Arch A 9 × 12
Arch B 12 × 18
Arch C 18 × 24
Arch D 24 × 36
Arch E 36 × 48
Arch E1 30 × 42
Arch E2 26 × 38
Arch E3 27 × 39[/pre:3i755aoo]30"X42" is an "E1" format, not an "E."

Peaking at the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) specification, however:
[pre:3i755aoo]ANSI A 5 × 11
ANSI B 11 × 17
ANSI C 17 × 22
ANSI D 22 × 34
ANSI E 34 × 44[/pre:3i755aoo]Regardless of what any architectural paper standard might be (or might have been):
In 1996 the American National Standards Institute adopted ANSI/ASME Y14.1 which defined a regular series of paper sizes based upon the de facto standard 8½"x11" (letter size) which it assigned "ANSI A." Tabloid — 11"x17" — is "ANSI B."

To repeat my previous post:

From my experience at Hercules Aerospace in UT (late 70s through most of the 80s), E-sized drawings were/are 34"x44". Yes, they were in fact quite difficult to manage ... both in the office and for field personnel.

Personally I prefer formats that fold neatly to fit a letter-sized format (8½"x11"). 22"x34" (ANSI D) works great.
I hope that you can appreciate my lifelong experience, as I can appreciate your recent, yet very significant contribution to the SketchUp/Layout community. I will be purchasing your soon-to-be-published book.

Thanks for all your constructive input, Nick.

Beyond E, E1, E2, and E3, there are sizes F through N. Most are not anymore employed.

Yes, Ashlar introduced a great product years ago. I was lucky enough to sit across a dinner table with Martin Newell (owner of 20 patents) on three occasions. The inferencing system was actually patented by him. I expect that he is collecting royalties from everyone employing that technology.
http://patents.justia.com/patent/5123087

So custom ticks are NOT available ... no circles, no dots (of any user-definable size, or outline thickness and no custom termination graphics allowed). How ... realistically (time consuming) might that be for a Trimble staff of programmers to implement such a beneficial and logical feature? Hey, just curious.

As previously noted, I've been a supporter since @Last 2000.

Standards certainly very, don't they. I thought that to be a major point of mine.

Actually, while I have great respect for what Nick Sonder has offered (particularly in terms of SU/LU structure), his statement regarding paper standards seemed inaccurate.

I have argued with many an architect, over any number of issues (some are more informed than others ... like engineers, like auto mechanics, like ... whomever), and I won't hesitate in the future (especially when their statements are patently wrong). I recently spent no less than $5,600 on the advice of a licensed architect ... who admitted to me that she couldn't "visualize space in 3D." Yeah, my bad. So ... paper-size issues should be a minor issue. The facts are there. Don't take offense, and don't take arbitrary sides based on some professional preference. (You don't, afterall, have a clue about what I do, nor about how such might trump or lay shallow to Mr. Sonder's.

Truth is, there are standards. And they are very many.

Here, we're talking about paper standards. I can handle that. I can also handle 3D visualization/design.

I didn't mean to rock anyone's boat.

I specifically suggested a couple of days ago that some introductory venue might be offered for new members of the forum to introduce themselves (although I joined in 2008, I have not at all been active), but I just got jokes as feed-back.

In short, I have worked in engineering and architectural circles since 1968. I'm NOT some 12 year old. Hell ... my grandson just turned 20 years old. As a matter of fact, my daughter's 40th birthday is exactly today!

Perhaps we could share more, later ... at some more appropriate place/time. This thread is about standardized paper formats, after all.

If you want to limit the standards, then at the very least recognize:

• E sized architectural format is 36"x48" (not 30"x42")
• E1 sized architectural format is 30"x42"

I will remind you that for 40+ years (as hinted in my previous post) Hercules Aerospace has/had assumed the 34"x44" format ... in pencil, in ink, and on mylar or vellum. I used all of those media ... using T-square & triangles, Hamilton mechanical rising drafting tables and coupled drafting arm solutions, etc.

Actually, the same 34"x44" E format was recognized by the very largest privately owned engineering company in the world — Fluor Engineers and Constructors (Irvine CA) — for whom I worked for three years. But hell, what did I know at the time (at the age of 22-25) about standardized media formats. What did Nick Sonder know at that time?

I can actually supply a photograph of me working at such a manual workstation (in 1975). Warning ... my hairline has receded some. I guess that doesn't matter since you don't have a clue what I look like now! LOL

Kind Regards

[ c ]

Thanks for bringing up this issue, Mikar. You beat me to the punch.

There appear to be no alternatives to the simple tick/slash within Layout for marrying a dimension line with both its extension lines (both linear & angular). MANY other graphics programs have long offered a number of alternative symbols/shapes ... some offering total user customization.

As a singular example, in 1989) I became a VAR for a product called Ashlar Vellum (now called Graphite). It was a 3D wireframe vector graphics program. Dimension customization options included:

• Arrowhead type (seven standard types immediately available)
• Arrow edit (length & height)
• Gap (from target object vertex)
• Extension (from dimension line)
• Text offset from dimension line)
  This variability was offered by a program that was introduced for public consumption 26 years ago!

What might SketchUp Layout have to offer in terms of user-dimension customization ... for future releases? I'm currently have SketchUp/Layout Pro 2015 (and have been a SketchUp user since @Last first released their product in 2000 — back when I was a ripe young sub-50 year old).

I am always looking forward to more.

@unknownuser said:

Yes, 30"x42" is E size in US. I stopped using this size as the contractors hate it in the field. I only use D size now (24" x 36").

From my experience at Hercules Aerospace in UT (late 70s through most of the 80s), E-sized drawings were/are 34"x44". Yes, they were in fact quite difficult to manage ... both in the office and for field personnel.

Personally I prefer formats that fold neatly to fit a letter-sized format (8½"x11"). 22"x34" (ANSI D) works great.

Love the "3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population", Dave.

Thanks for your help.

Personally, I think that it would be helpful to offer a forum or std thread for personal member introductions. [On other forums with which I have actively dealt] I enjoy(ed) knowing some background of the folk with whom I am addressing a topic — whether to understand level of user competence or just to enjoy some personable connection. Might that be some future option for this forum?