Reflection on Assignment Three and Part Three Feedback from my tutor.

I received the feedback a while ago and needed to clarify a few bits with my tutor before properly reflecting on it. In the meantime, I got stuck in Part Four and finished it, so only now the time allows to type it out (I had notes for ages).


My tutor noted that I am learning how to communicate through drawing, it is an essential tool and measured and accurate hand and CAD drawings are important.

My tutor clarified that drawings are part of instructions, and it is likely that my future drawings will be instructing ‘hand’, not the machine, therefore I should not worry too much about points size in my hand drawings as there always be ‘an amount of tolerance’.

According to the feedback I have done well with Contextual Study ‘Lines – a close reading’ by breaking the text down and then making connections. My tutor said my methods will pay off; it was reassuring to hear as I was not sure whether my mind map was done the ‘right way’. It paid off to do what felt right. Also, during our recent chat my tutor said there is no right or wrong way to do contextual studies, as it is all about what I think (that was rather wonderful news!)

My peer activity has been noted and encouraged – I shall continue.


It is nice to know that my research is considered thorough and in some cases I researched beyond the requirements of the course (I had not even realised I did ‘extra’). My tutor said that any extra work like that will help me with the studying and develop my unique design interests. I will continue drawing on my own experience when considering texts and drawing my own conclusions.


My approach to ‘Lines’ contextual study and completing it showed (according to the feedback) creativity. This helped me understand the ideas presented and draw my own conclusions. I am really pleased my tutor thought so as I found this task quite hard at the time (not creating but reading and understanding).

My tutor’s opinion is that my creativity shows in connections I make between the course work and the ‘outside’ world. I must make sure I take photos or draw and add these images when I make my observations in the learning log.

I am encouraged to share more of my thoughts, I must remember to take notes and photos or draw when they come to me.

I keep having thoughts about lines, that text really stuck in my mind. Previously in my learning log I said that only truly straight lines are rays of light, but I was wrong… A piece of string can be straight if its hanging with a weight attached to the bottom. In this case the gravity/ nature makes it straight, even if the string is manmade. This knowledge is often used by bricklayers as reference for building straight, vertical walls.

Another thought about straight lines is that perhaps it does not matter if the line is perfectly straight as long as it appears straight.

Communication and presentation:

I have received a well done for persevering with CAD software and on starting with technical drawing both in CAD and by hand.

My tutor said that section drawn by hand (or line drawing in CAD, not a section of an extruded 3D shape), helps understand better individual components and how the section is made.

Drawing on a board with parallel motion was recommended by my tutor. I already got one and I am looking forward to the next technical drawing exercise where hopefully my angles will be better than in my previous exercises. It is important that my angles are what they should be, and the lines are parallel when needed. I realise I did not get it quite right in the past.

I should improve on using line weights to indicate the hierarchy in line drawings.

My tutor recommended checking the wall thicknesses in my bathroom drawings. I have since clarified it with her, that two walls are external hence they are thicker in my drawings.

I should research how other CAD drawings are titled and I should include title block and some dimensions in my CAD drawings.

I also should have added thickness to the ‘cut’ card in section drawing of my model in assignment 3. Even though it is a card and is fairly thin I should have included that thickness in my CAD drawing. I tried to measure it since, and it looks like 0.1mm thickness. I had a look online and found a table on ZX Printer website stating that 140gsm paper which I used to create the base of my model has thickness of 0.16mm. Now I wonder whether the ‘cut through’ tops in my model should also have had thickness according to their 80gsm. According to that same table that would be 0.065mm thick. Therefore, CAD is such a great tool, it would be impossible to include this detail by hand (unless you do a magnified scale (eg. 10:1) drawing for a portion of ‘normal’ drawing.

My tutor mentioned that it would have been a good idea to include bases of my model in plan as dotted line. What a great idea, I am gutted I did not think of it at a time.

Also, there was no need to copy my plan drawing to then add section, I should have done it on the original. I wanted to preserve my original drawing but there was no need for that.

My tutor said more information (within reason) such as section line on the drawing is better.

My tutor noted that ‘my survey notes for spatial drawing were well organised with different colours for different dimensions’ – I was pleased to read this compliment.

Critical Reflection:

My tutor told me that contextual studies and critical reflection tasks add to knowledge and eventually will help me inform my design choices and connections I make.

After reading the feedback I realised I had not been clear enough in my reflection in exercise 2.3 regarding my measurements not being clear to someone else. They were clear to me; I was instructing myself with them. Of course, I agree with my tutor that if I were passing those instructions on to someone else, I would need to make my notes super clear. I should practice ‘clear’ instructions for myself in the meantime so I am not out of my depth in future when I could possibly be a part of a larger team. Certainly, I must reflect in a clear and productive manner too.

To improve my work:

  • I need to look at some examples of technical drawings, layout, how drawings relate to others on same page, what information is included in title block, how much other information (dimensions, notes, material) is given. Does this depend on the scale of the drawing?
Fig. 1 Existing and proposed floorplans. Sectional elevations.

In Fig. 1 above we can see that each room is described with its function, there is a compass near floorplan showing North. Each of the subdrawings has a number and title underlined, and below sheet reference number and scale. Also, for reference there is a line scale added, which is a practical solution in case this drawing was not printed on a3, one could use a ruler and work out a scale. There is a lot of very clear notes what is to be kept, what to demolished, specific comments regarding new dimensions, new structural elements. I’m assuming title block is the one in bottom right corner, it includes: company details, a small table for revision comments (which is blank so I’m assuming it’s the first version), project details, drawing details (i.e. ‘existing and proposed floorplans, sectional elevations’), authors name, date, scale, project number and sheet number. There are some dimensions (as suggested by my tutor) and section lines. I also noticed that existing and proposed floorplans are directly above one another with walls on right hand side aligned so the difference in extension sizes on both plans can be seen. I can also see structural elements under the floor of the building. There is also some small print, possibly about terms and conditions, not quite legible

Noticing all this information made me think I should probably create a template table to include in my technical drawings so they all include same information and I should  place it in one of the corners of my drawings.

Fig. 2 Proposed Extension Elevations

The drawing in Fig. 2 contains a lot of instructions for the builder (architect ‘rules’ the builder – lines again). It does not specify any dimensions. I can see that subtitles under each part is scaled to match scale of the drawing. There are two scales specified, but it does not say on what paper, so I assume architect would print this one on the correct size paper and provide hard copy to the contractor. There is a comment saying ‘not to scale off the drawing’, perhaps there was more drawings in the pack specifying the dimensions in detail. There is a similar table to Fig. 1 containing similar information.

Both drawings look neat and clear. I must look at some tutorials how to create and paste information tables into my drawings.

  • I should remember about thicknesses in section drawings, no matter how small.
  • I need to pay more attention to line thicknesses and their hierarchy in technical drawings.
  • My tutor recommended that I practice technical drawing of objects and spaces know to me either by hand or in cad.
  • Books and websites were suggested to broaden my knowledge. I signed up to the mailing list on to receive their newsletter straight to my inbox.

All in all, I am pleased with my feedback and the amount of advice and tips I got from it.

List of illustrations:

Fig. 1 Noel, A (2016) Existing and proposed floorplans. Sectional elevations. [CAD Drawing] At: (Accessed 19/06/2020)

Fig. 2 Haworth, D (2014) Proposed Extension Elevations [CAD Drawing] At:


ZX Printer (2013) The Thickness of Printing Paper List [Reference Table] At: (Accessed on 19/06/2020)

Assignment 3

Hand drawn plan elevation and section of my model:

Reflection on completing Assignment 3:

I found completing this task really challenging, mainly because my model has a very irregular shape that is difficult to measure.

I tried measuring from one point to another, spaces between etc. I was not able to get my ruler right in there, I am certain my measurements were not correct to a millimetre.

I am nevertheless happy with the result, considering how challenging this shape is.

Reflection on Part 3:

During part 3 I learnt the importance of detailed survey that is legible and that drawing details (such as lengths and angles) correctly is paramount to the finished drawing doing what is intended to do (give correct instruction to builder etc).

I started learning AutoCAD, still way to go but pleased with progress so far. I decided to get a new monitor, the one I had did not have best resolution. Now I have it I can really see the difference when drawing in CAD.  To start with I did not use layers, but in my assignment drawing I created 7. They are a great tool and were great help. CAD is great for creating small detail to scale. One can also trust lengths and angles created in the software.

I also used layers in my hand drawing for assignment 3 to help me measure dimensions to rely onto CAD software and not ruining my original drawing (Fig. 1 below). I used tracing paper over my drawing to draw squares which then I measured and used as guide to fit my objects in CAD.

Fig. 1

I learnt that one site survey would probably never be enough, but it is important to note everything, even what seems to be unimportant at a time. Going back and forth may not be practical and certainly will not look professional. It is also important to note your measurements in a legible manner. Second visits purpose should be to double check and measure details that would inevitably get missed first time. If it is one small thing it will probably not impact the design but if it is important then it may stall design work.

I looked at my learning log entries and noticed that in Exercise 3.3 in exploded planometric drawing I could have marked internal edges of bath and sink and then place the drain holes differently.

I still struggle with mind-maps and the ‘Lines: A Close Reading’ contextual study was tough. I found it hard because I could not tell which information was important or relevant. The text kept coming back to me afterwards when drawing both by hand and in CAD. I kept thinking about guidelines and plotlines and how accurate Tim Ingold was.

I made some observations about lines:

  • One can draw a close representation of any object or space in CAD using only straight lines. Some of the lines I created in my assignment 3 look quite curvy despite consisting of shorter perfectly straight lines, therefore:
  • We are surrounded by lines.
  • Some people prefer straight lines, some rounded but it is impossible to create a space using only straight or only rounded lines.

Another thought: Contextual – gives context – looking at it now it certainly gave context to lines I was drawing afterwards. My mind was constantly wandering back to the points I read. I didn’t enjoy that study at the time, but it gave me so much food for thought – now I am happy it was included in the course.

I am thinking of getting a drawing board with a ruler and set square to get my lines and angles correct (and to make technical drawing by hand a pain free task).

It is important to draw both by hand and in CAD as repeating the process gives us time to contemplate and notice details previously missed. It is also good to give yourself a break and then go back and look at the drawings again, with fresh eyes. As I did and noticed error in my exploded planometric drawing. Perhaps if I completed it first by hand I would have spotted it in CAD.

Recently, while sitting in my garden I noticed a shadow of metal staircase railing on a wall. I thought it is like natures axonometric projection. Of course, dimensions were distorted but straight lines (or shall I say visibly straight lines) were there casting interesting pattern.

At first, I found it hard to distinguish axonometric from planometric projections. Only after completing the cube and cylinder planometric drawings I understood that the floor shape and angles remain same in planometric but change in axonometric.

Exercise 3.3 Object / Space Parallel Projection

I selected my space and decided to complete this exercise using autocad.

Firstly I copied my floorplan autocad drawing, rotated it 45° and started drawing the walls upwards. This time I looked into creating layers and created a ‘red’ layer for my walls. In the process of creating walls I selected my base floor plan to be more transparent for visual purposes. Fig. 1 and fig.2 below show some of the steps in the process.

When I finished I saved it as pdf in two versions, fig. 3 shows all layers, I think it’s interesting to see how the original plan relates to the planometric projection (unfortunately at this point I didn’t work out yet I can set it to show transparency on pdf as in software), fig. 4 shows ‘proper’ planometric projection of the space. Im not happy with either of those below, the line colours are wrong, no idea why, I figured it out later on (following day).

I decided to explode the objects within the space to practice using the software. It was quite a labourous exercise, spent better half of day exploding 4 objects in planometric projection. In the images below (fig. 5 – 7) I show part of the process for the sink and toilet (toilet was the hardest, I guessed some of the shape, otherwise it would probably take me a few days). I used dashed line layer when drafting some of the details on the toilet.

When I finished I changed my red layer colour to black and saved pdfs showing different layers.

Fig. 8 shows all layers, fig. 9 planometric space and exploded elements, fig. 10 just planometric projection of space.

Reflection on task:

I found this task enjoyable, despite being time consuming. It helped me understand how the angles work against each other and how the objects are placed withing the space. I skipped a few things such as the visible side of the bath (I’m sure it’s not boxed in like in my drawing) or thermostats on the towel warmer. I am pleased with the level of detail I included. I also found this exercise beneficial for my autocad skills, but still long way to go…

Exercise 3.2: Cube & Cylinder: Planometric Projections in CAD

At first I thought that correct way to complete this exercise is to create 3D objects and then view them in planometric. So I went on to create my objects. For the cubes I created first square (3000 x 3000mm) and then extruded it 3000mm upwards. Then I created another square 3400 x 3400mm and extruded it 3000mm upwards. Then I placed smaller cube inside the larger and subtracted so I had my wall thickness of 200mm. After that I copied the whole object and rotated one of them at 45° and the second one at 30°. Then I selected the view from front and top. At this point I thought I had planometric view but didn’t check the angles.

After that I went to top view again and created my cylinder, in similar way, created my circles, extruded them, then placed one inside another and extracted. Again I viewed all three objects from top and front and this time I noticed that my circle became oval, so I checked angles on top square (by placing my square on computer screen) and they weren’t right angles.

Also the lines were rugged and in my pdf they were different thickness. I have a feeling it has something to do with that fact that these are 3D objects…

Here’s my incorrect work (Fig. 1 and fig. 2):

I have done some online research on how to create planometric view in both Autocad and vectorworks but with no luck. I read the bits in course book again, and it said that planometric view is not ‘real’ so at this point I decided I just need to do a 2D line drawing to depict what I drew by hand. So I started in similar way by drawing two squares (I found squares created by using connected lines easier later when deleting not needed lines), but this time I didn’t extrude anything, just rotated them and drew upwards lines from each corner, then I snapped another pair of squares on top. After that I deleted all lines that should be invisible, it was a little tricky, but found it easier to get my head around if I first deleted lines that crossed top edge of the wall. The cylinder I created in a similar way, with difference of no need for rotation. I had to create some guidelines to snap my top circles correctly. Below is the process of creation of cylinder (Fig. 3 -7) and the result of all three objects in planometric view (fig. 8).

Fig. 8

Reflection on task:

I learnt in practice that planometric projection is not a real view of space or object. Good lesson today.

Exercise 3.1: Cube & Cylinder: Planometric Projections by Hand

Cube: planometric projection at 45° angles:

I started with drawing a horizontal line and first, smaller square at 45° angles to the horizontal line. After that I drew diagonal lines through the middle of my square, in order to measure the bigger square measuring 4mm away from outside corners of the smaller square (fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Then I measured 4mm outside of two corners and marked them on the diagonal line. After that I connected the points (Fig . 2).

Then I connected remaining points while measuring and ensuring I retain 90° angles using my set square (quite handy these guides on see through set squares). Fig 3 below shows it didn’t go quite to plan, but I realised and amended by marking 4mm outside bottom corner of square and redrawing the line while ensuring the right angle (Fig. 4)

Then I drew vertical lines to ‘explode’ my cube up and using compass to measure the distance from each corner I marked its height (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

After that I connected the remaining lines, erased what should not be visible and my finished drawing can be seen in Fig. 6. It reminds me of art deco pattern when looked at straight on.

Fig. 6

Cube: planometric projection at 30°/60° angles:

I started by drawing a horizontal line and then left line at 30° and right one at 60° (Fig.7).

Fig. 7

Then I used my compass to measure and mark the lengths of the squares lower sides. After that I marked the top corner of the square measuring with compass from the marked criss-cross points (Fig. 8)

Fig. 8

I drew my lines longer on purpose for easy marking with compass (Fig. 9)

Fig. 9

Then I connected the edges of larger square while measuring the right angles (fig. 10).

Fig. 10

After that I erased ‘internal’ lines between the squares and drew vertical lines at 90° to the horizontal line (Fig. 11). I must admit it all looked a bit skew to me at this point, but I carried on anyway.


I measured and marked ‘top’ squares using compass again (Fig. 12 and Fig. 13). I find using compass much more accurate than measuring same distances with a ruler each time.

I connected corners of lower and upper larger squares. It looked even more off at this point. (Fig. 14)

Fig. 14

I erased non-visible lines and Fig.15 shows the result of the process. Looks better and less skew than with all the lines in place.

Fig. 15

Cylinder: planometric projection:

I drew my cylinder in a slightly different way than the course book instructed but I measured my radius at 1500mm (in scale 1:50) so my smaller circle would fit inside square 3000 x 3000mm.

I started with drawing horizontal line, then a line at 90° angle to it. I measured the radius of my circle on that last line, marked it and drew my circle from there (Fig 16).

Fig. 16

After that I marked the middle of upper circle and drew it using same measurements as for lower circle. Then I changed my radius (extra 200mm so 4mm in my scale) and drew two larger circles. At this point I decided to draw horizontal lines (parallel to the first line) to see the ‘meeting’ points of circles and vertical lines that connect them. Then I drew these vertical lines. (Fig. 17 and Fig. 18)

After that I erased the non-visible lines and Fig. 19 shows my finished drawing. I found cylinder much easier and faster to draw than the cube.

Fig. 19

Reflection on the task:

I enjoyed this exercise, but I think it will be easier to be accurate in CAD where a point is really a point, on paper despite being small it still has dimensions…

Also it was interesting after the contextual study about lines. Guidelines helped to create plotlines, but sometimes I was extending the plotlines so they were half plotlines, half guidelines…

Axonometric vs planometric drawings

Fig. 1 Planometric at 45 degrees angles
Fig. 2 Isometric example

I think the main difference between axonometric and planometric drawings is where you view the space from. In planometric you’re viewing plan so from above and at angle, often the nearest walls are removed. In axonometric it is usually more from the side then from above at an angle. In planometric roof or ceiling are removed, in axonometric the roof is on or off, or may it be exploded up. It is very hard to tell them apart, I’m not quite sure if my examples are right.

Update 15.04.2020:

After drawing my planometric drawings for the next exercise I think I know how to tell the difference between isometric and planometric projections:

Planometric retains the true angles of the objects floor (and dimensions)

Isometric retains the dimensions but angles change.

Fig. 1 Guadaliquivir House / Derive LAB (2016) Axonemtrico Planta Baya. (CAD Drawing) At: (Accessed 14/04/2020)

Fig. 2 Panorama Estudio (2015) Casa Aidar axonometric (CAD drawing) At: (Accessed 14/04/2020)

Exploded axonometric drawings (examples)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

List of illustrations:

Fig. 1 Urban Shelter / MYCC (2013) Exploded Axon. (Exploded axonometric drawing) At: (Accessed 14/04/2020)

Fig. 2 Logical Process in Architectural Design (2016) Architectural Design Based on Void Volume. (Exploded axonometric drawing) At: (Accessed 14/04/2020)

Fig. 3 Hogrefe, A. (2012) Exploded Axon | Visualizing Architecture. (Exploded axonometric drawing) At: (Accessed 14/04/2020)

Contextual study point 2: Lines – A Close Reading.


  1. Access Chapter 6: How the Line Became Straight, Lines by Tim Ingold, 2016 from [link]
  2. Do a close reading* of the chapter above to explore the theoretical notion of lines and their relevance to design.
  3. Create a mind map that explores Tim Ingold’s theories and using your learning log critically reflect on the argument that he is presenting.
  4. Reflect on the activity and what you have gained from doing it

At first I printed the pages and read it all to understand the main content. Then I re-read and underlined certain, most important in my opinion parts and made notes in corresponding colours.

Critical reflection on the argument:

I found the argument presented in the text quite philosophical, despite containing many facts. If we consider that an absolutely straight line doesn’t physically exist, then we can only dwell on its theory. After reading the chapter I think the only example of straight line that exists will be a ray of light, but that’s not something that can be easily seen, touched or drawn.

The author, Tim Ingold presents us with many facts and theories such as straight line being associated with the human ‘stuff’ such as mind, civilisation and science while curved line can be associated with primitiveness, nature and matter. There are many common conceptions based on straightness and non-straightness such as thinking straight, crooked or twisted mind.

Straight lines are created by humans while curved by nature. Straight line is associated with male and curved with female.

 Too much straightness creates yearning for wilderness. We can experience that in the modern cities where skyscrapers dominate with their linear designs and there is little or no greenery, people generally don’t find this welcoming or pleasant. We need curvaceous nature for our mental wellbeing.  

The author explores the ideas of guidelines and plotlines where the plotlines are the actual lines and guidelines are essential to creating the plotlines. After reading the text I believe that no plotline can exist without the guideline, even if the latter has since been erased or made invisible.

There are similarities between architectural and musical sketches and drawings in regards to guidelines, plotlines and creative process.

The ruler has its own section in the text, it is an important tool, enabling drawing almost perfectly straight lines. Drawing with a ruler (or using a software) is a workmanship of certainty where the outcome is predetermined but the final drawing lacks movement and life. Sketching is a creative way of drawing (workmanship of risk) where the final result is unpredictable and the outcome changes throughout the process that can be tracked.

I learnt from the text that most architects prefer drawing to writing, and they only write what cannot be drawn. They use freehand sketches to develop the ideas and measured and ruled specification drawings afterwards to instruct the builders.

Straight line is an icon of modernity while fragmented line is a symbol of postmodernity. Curved lines are often called organic.

Seems that most important quality of lines is that they are open-ended such as our lives, train of thoughts and histories…

Reflection on the task:

I found this task difficult. I found the text philosophical and hard to rely, however writing down the ‘important bits’ on my map helped me get some order and re-word the main ideas from the text. The most difficult part of the task was to start typing out my critique. I learnt from this task that I just need to get on with it, and once you start the words flow and with help of some notes you can dwell on any subject, even the philosophical one. I came up with my own observation on straight and curved line when exploring the ideas of sketching and drawing straight lines and how the outcome is predetermined or not depending on the type of drawing: The exclamation mark is a straight line while a question mark is a curved one – certainty and question…

Exercise 2.4: Space: Plan & Sections in CAD

Firstly I tried to create my floor plan using vectorworks software. I tried using object templates for sink and toilet but later decided they didn’t quite represent the physical items present.

The above is a snip of pdf saved from vectorworks, soon after I deleted the object templates.

I found the software hard to follow, not very intuitive and help explanations used dry language that I found hard to understand. For example I never discovered how to delete part of the line that’s crossing another line (in my example below the wall lines are still present in the doorway, I never discovered how to delete them in vectorworks). I also struggled with saving / printing it to scale 1:20, after measuring my print out the dimensions were a little smaller… The jpeg of drawing below was saved as scale 1:1 in settings, when I was trying to save it in 1:20 I was getting a tiny blob of a floorplan on A4 sheet.

Vectorworks plan drawing

After I couldn’t finish my drawing to my satisfaction, I decided to change software to Autodesk. I found it easier to follow and find help. The only task I’m not sure how I completed on my drawing was the arches for door and cupboard door. There were too many options I tried all of them, I think in the end I drew circles and snipped them to the current edges. Here is my plan completed in Autodesk. Saved as scale 1:1 on A4 but when printed it was still slightly smaller than should have been in scale 1:20. The small blob of a plan was saved with scale set as 1:20. I must admit I was losing my mind over the scaling and printing settings at this point.

Then I moved to my section drawing. Again I created a simple line drawing. In both plan and section I was measuring the dimensions from one object to another by either creating a line of or a rectangle in those dimensions, snapping it to required spot and then snapping my object to a specific point on rectangle or to the end of the line. When doing the section however I decided to create a green rectangle depicting maximum dimensions of the toilet. Here I discovered that my hand drawn section was missing the top of the toilet (flushing system cover).

Then I decided to help myself with some more guidelines, this time in red. The toilet shape was complicated with the angles etc, I found it much easier to draw with that help. I’m not sure if that what my toilet elevation looks like as it’s impossible for me to see, but I’m satsfied it is close enough.

When creating digital section drawing I also realised that my hand drawn section wasn’t showing sink waste pipe and it should have. I included that detail in my digital drawing.

I asked other students how they manage scaling and someone told me they set the scale at the start. So I set the scale at 1:20 when starting work on my section. When I printed it it was still a little bit off, ceiling height was 2 – 2.5mm shorter on the printout, which would give up to 50mm difference in real life. I’m not sure if that’s acceptable, but somehow I don’t think so… I’m happy with the details I created on the sink and tap, and this time the towel warmer is more to scale than on hand drawn section, it was easier to create and amend all details on the computer. Here’s my finished bathroom section A created in Autodesk software, I deleted all my ‘help/guide’ lines and rectangles prior to saving the final version. I also discovered more errors as I uploaded the image here and consulted it with my hand drawn version (the width of the room was wrong. I think I included the wall thickness. I realised it’s wrong by the position of the mirror against towel warmer. I also missed the wall past window opening, all amended).

Bathroom Section A

Lastly I realised that section is worthless without the plan with section line and direction on it. So I went back to my plan drawing and drew section line in red (after carefully measuring on my hand drawn plan where the section line should be on digital one). Here it is:

Reflection on the task:

What a task it has been! I spent 7 days trying to learn vectorworks and creating just a plan and then created all the drawings in just 2 days in autodesk software. I created the drawings in 2d, just simple line drawings, using only 1 layer for now. I realize the process would have been even faster if I was more proficient with the software and extruded the dimensions of each object into 3d, then the section would have been generated by the software at a click of a button. Also once I get more proficient and start using layers I can have guide lines layer that can be switched on and off at a click of button.

I learnt that when doing the survey one should make note of all dimensions, make bigger drawings of details so dimensions can be written clearly and referred to later. I still had to go back to my bathroom and measure some more details that I just measured and drawn in previous exercise. I realise going back and forth won’t be possible when working for a client (unless they allow me to camp on site ha!ha!).

Also when creating digital drawings I discovered errors in hand drawings, and hand drawings helped me discover digital errors.

It is much easier to include small details digitally. For example the door frame is sticking out 2mm off the wall, I included it (not that anyone can see it) but there were other details that otherwise were hard to capture and measure when hand drawing to scale (such as taps or towel warmer).

Also 90 degrees and other angles are much easier to create and be sure they are what the should be.

CAD software is a great tool and I’m looking forward to getting to know it better.

During this and the previous exercises I also learnt that I need a whole new bathroom. I wanted it since moved here but now that I drew it I know exactly whats wrong with it – too long bath tub, too little storage, towel warmer should be radiator and shouldn’t be in a way of the door, hence the whole refit and reconfiguration is needed. When I get more proficient with software I shall design my own bathroom, I’m looking forward to it.

Exercise 2.3: Space: Section at Scale 1:20

To start with I photocopied the floor plan I created in previous exercise. Then I drew section line in red and cut side of the page (so it fits on my A3 clipboard together with tracing paper). I secured them with masking tape and drew guide lines using 0.3mm automatic pencil (only now I noticed I didn’t draw guide lines for sink tap elements). During this exercise I had to go back and forth and measure some more (for example toilet side elevation or under sink cabinet interior elements). I discovered elements I didn’t think I would have to include in this drawing, such as the waste pipe at the back of the toilet or the door handle. I must admit I helped myself by looking at some section images online (bathroom sink and toilet) to get an idea of elements and what they look like. It would have been quite awkward to see these in my bathroom without having to disassemble some of the bathroom elements.

I photocopied the section drawing so I can have a clear copy of it, independent of the plan drawing. I then titled, dated and put scale info on copied page.

Reflection on task

I can see that some of my measurement drawings may not make sense to anyone but me. I’m ok with it, in the end it is me who drew the section.

Create your website with
Get started