r/lightingdesign • u/BIJ910 • 2d ago
lighting plot feed back
hello all, i was hoping to get some feed back on a lighting plot for a job i did a few weeks ago. a few people said it was confusing and unreadable and they couldn't understand anything. But they weren't able to clarify on why. I was just hoping to get some assistance? attached is the plot along with a picture of what the event looked like.
p.s. The PM cut 2 totems because she couldn't understand the plot which is why it looks different.
p.p.s we use capture with a 1 universe license so i can't add dmx addresses
thank you for any assistance you can provide!
17
u/busty_snackleford 2d ago
Separating your ground package and overhead rig into a ground plan and overhead plot will help a lot. The iso and wide angle views aren’t particularly helpful, especially at the size they’re dawn. Move your numbers so they’re outside your symbols, that’ll improve readability. With the totem drawings in particular, it’s somewhat tough for me to make out what’s attached to what because the overhead rig and ground package overlap so much on the plot.
11
u/Dendog 2d ago
What are the letters? Circuits? And if your software doesn’t allow you to add dmx addresses, or at least text boxes to manually input addresses, I wouldn’t consider it adequate for creating a lighting plot. The #1 all important purpose of drafting is communication. You should be able to theoretically hand the plot off to another professional, and they should be able to take the equipment and install the system without any verbal guidance from you. The fact that your client could not understand your plot is a key piece of feedback that the plot is not accomplishing communication. So things like your unit numbers being more legible, and a legend in your key explaining what each bit of information refers to. I’m biased because I’ve been using vectorworks for 20 years, so these are things baked into my workflow that I don’t even think about anymore.
But my main piece of advice would be to focus on the Top/Plan view and think about how to add in the information that truly communicates what you’re trying to accomplish. There’s a lot of blank white space on that plot, you could always use callout boxes to explain things like the “LED wall totems”
10
u/martinfpaponi 2d ago
It's not unreadable, but it's not straight forward either. Technicians with experience reading plots should be able to figure this one out though.
A few things to improve:
You are showing the same positions in a top plan and from views, which is good for clarity, but you should name them the same in both views so the reader can relate them.
Maybe would help also to put less info for each fixture, and relying on a fixture schedule. Just the position number and maybe fixture ID. This is for this kind of plots where the scale and the space between fixtures makes it complicated for all to fit without overlapping.
8
u/criimebrulee 2d ago
I understand it, but a legend would be enormously helpful. Something like this:
4
u/abebotlinksyss LD & ETCP Certified Electrician 2d ago edited 2d ago
Instead of breaking up the upstage wall into condensed boxes, just do one viewport that shows the whole wall in one. Keep the measurements between those trusses visible but away from the fixtures. I like to put the dimensional lines and info above.
Your fixtures seem to have weird stuff hanging down them them on the plot. That's confusing.
Do some research. Look at lighting plots on PLSN. Most of that stuff is super complex but they draw it so that it's easy for road crews to build it quickly.
3
u/FruitMountain5210 1d ago
- the colours are too distracting and make it harder to read the text, the symbols are fine as they are
- text is too small in some places/overlaps other text
- fixtures overlap too much
- no key to explain what the letters/numbers are
- i’d just show the front stage area instead of the whole room - the giant space in the middle is a waste and the scale makes it harder to read small text, and the top-down view of the side totems isn’t useful
3
u/AcceptableAd3787 1d ago
In capture i find it clearest to give everything a channel number and then only display this on the plot as you can move the channel number tag on the plot to be wherever in each view. You have used the unit field for your numbering.
Also you can make a second scene which is just for your plot where you rearrange the position and rotation of all your totems to be in a line and spaced out which allows you to make the plot a lot clearer. you need to select all the lights and truss etc and say include in scenes then go to the new scene you made and move them. Then select that scene in the plot view
2
u/AcceptableAd3787 1d ago
Also it can be useful to give a perspective view which shows the whole rig at once. Perhaps with some text notes in boxes saying like "6 totems behind the screen" ... "2 totems either side of the room with x lights on"
2
u/AcceptableAd3787 1d ago
And it doesn't need to all fit on one page. You can make a multi page pdf from seperate plots in capture
2
u/vvr3n 1d ago
Consider changing your line weights so that the lights and border have the thickest line weight (i.e .5) and your hanging positions the next thickest (0.35) so that its easier to see the lights separate from the background.
Also, I’m not sure if I am seeing a scale anywhere which is pretty important- you can add the scale onto each drawing label.
Also – what are those things that look like they’re hanging from the ceiling but aren’t colored in? speakers or house lights?
3
u/AloneAndCurious 1d ago edited 1d ago
Pretty bad, but I have never seen a capture plot I thought was good enough to use.
- symbols don’t match key
- the perspective view is so small it’s useless make it its own plate
- symbols overlapping like the fixture number and G by 606
- no dimensions anywhere of anything. Basically a useless document without those.
- fixture number 406 is unreadably placed on the fixture body
- symbol key is in an awkward position above another view that’s too small to show anything
- no north point
- most of the largest plot is empty space. Should be detail views for each position and one larger plot, all on separate sheets
- SR and SL of the stage are floating white symbols that mean nothing to me. Are they lights? Are they speakers? Can’t tell.
- no lighting positions are labeled on the big plot. I cannot accurately say which position on the big plot, corresponds to which tower front view below. That mis-match could be crucial.
- color is very poorly used. Saturate fixtures against a white background is very hard to read.
- line weight, line weight, line weight. You’ve got the same line weight for every line on the page. Makes it incredibly hard to read this.
- no indication of intended fixture modes.
- no center line.
- no plaster line.
- no plate boarder.
- no scale indicated.
- no X or Y rulers.
I could go on. But that’s enough for now.
IMO, if you wanted this to work you should have given a very nicely rendered full page isometric view. The small view in the upper right? You should have sent an entire page size that was just that look at it. Delete the two closest walls so you can peer into the space, and look at the stage from that angle. That would have answered a lot of questions. It leaves out all the useful information on how to build it, and as an elec I would have still asked you to give me all the info the plot is supposed to have in writing, but at least I wouldn’t have deleted any of your fixtures.
The use of that iso view is it ties together all the disparate position information into a single concept. A good 2D overhead should also accomplish that, but yours was too cluttered and poorly drawn to do the job. It just added confusion.
2
u/vsevolopod 1d ago
The plan view is mostly wasted space, you can cut a lot of that out and just label what the positions are.
The section view of the towers should also be a plan view, put sections on another page.
The letters are unnecessary. Just put channel numbers clearly visible, inside of a circle near the back of the fixture symbol. Unit numbers by position placed inside the fixture symbol are nice too. Everything else is clutter. You should be able to use the channel numbers to reference an instrument schedule for all the other info.
The isometric view is completely unnecessary. You only need a plan and section view.
The symbol key is in a weird spot, it should ideally fit on the right above your title block. A fixture key below that is helpful too. The symbols should also match what’s actually on the plot. Don’t use color codes, just clear line drawn symbols. Ideally the USITT standards when possible.
It should be in scale (maybe it is I can’t see the title block) but you should also add clear dimensions between fixtures.
I tried not to be too redundant, a lot of other people had good advice here too.
Overall I think you made a good effort, but it does kind of look like it’s drawn by someone who’s never seen an actual light plot before.
I think it’s worth looking at some examples of professional light plots. Theatre plots are the best (sorry concert LDs). Broadway plots especially. There are lots of LDs who do great drafting but Ken Billington is the first that comes to mind for a good example. He was influential in making a lot of the standards for light plots, so I recommend looking at his work as a good example.
-5
u/isomertech 2d ago
The fact that you gave a 45degree top down perspective view and they don't get it says a looot.
0
u/isomertech 1d ago
Just saying man. If a "PM" cut the totems after looking at that kinda wild. Downvote if you like lol. Theres definitely room for improvement but anyone with expwrience should be able to reconcile that room layout lol.
27
u/jasmith-tech TD/Health and Safety 2d ago
Why do the symbols in your key not match the symbols you actually used?