Rant: Everyone keeps using the wrong line weights on their elevation sheets

I reviewed three sets of plans last week from different guys and every one of them had 0.5mm lines on the roof ridges and 0.35mm on the windows, which is backwards and makes the whole thing look flat, so who taught you this stuff?

2 comments

2 Comments

milap351mo ago

Flipped my first set of elevation sheets completely backwards once (rookie move, I know) and my boss handed them back to me with that disappointed dad look that makes you want to crawl under your desk. I do agree with you that swapping the weights makes things look all mushy, but I think the real problem is nobody's taught a consistent theory since the 90s. I learned from some random YouTube tutorial that had the roof ridges at 0.7mm and everything else at 0.3mm, and I just ran with it until someone told me I was doing it wrong. Honestly half the time I'm just guessing which line weight makes the drawing look less like a coloring book (you know, the kind where every line is the same thickness and your eyes just slide off the page). Maybe we should start a support group for architects who can't settle on elevation standards - though knowing us we'd argue about the font for the meeting sign.

grace_hunt841mo ago

Multiplied line weights serve a purpose but you're treating it like a fixed rule. I've seen plenty of clean elevation sheets where the windows pop with a 0.5mm stroke against lighter building outlines. Roof ridges don't need to scream the loudest if your hatch patterns and fills are doing the heavy lifting for depth. Especially on digital submissions where line weights get compressed anyway. Different firms have different standards for what reads best at print scale. Maybe their drawings looked flat for other reasons like weak shading or bad material callouts.