5D+ Curic Section - Section by Tag or by Material?

[JQL]

Hi guys!

I’ve been trying to setup my workflow with 5D+ as I think it’s a very extension at speeding up the construction documentation process with Sketchup and Layout.

As 5D+ users might be well aware, the workflow is mostly based on a custom layer list which we can use to organize the model and perform several actions, from IFC classification to labeling the model.

Besides that, Curic Section is also able to hatch sections by Tag and by Material.

I’d really like to discuss what is the method you’re using and why:

• I’ve always used Curic Section by Material as what most section hatches represent really are materials and as one of the advantages of Sketchup is the ability to texture the model and use it for rendering and presentations as well as quantity take offs, that always made more sense to me than section by tag.
• However, since my Tag list is growing and is becoming quite extensive, covering each element type, in order to have them translated into IFC objects later, I’m thinking if it would be wiser to change into a Section by Tag method.

My problem is that, if I’m going to change to Sections by Tag, and as section hatches will still represent the materials of the built elements, how do you deal with those elements?

Do you create tags for all variations of an element?

Example of two walls, one is brick the other is concrete:

1. Section by Material works like this:

• BRICK WALL: Wall Tag > Converts to IfcWall > Painted with Brick Material > Section by material results in Brick Hatch > IfcMaterial is Brick.
• CONCRETE WALL: Wall Tag > Converts to IfcWall > Painted with Concrete Material > Section by material results in Concrete Hatch > IfcMaterial is Concrete.

2. Section by Tag would work like what?

• BRICK WALL: Brick Wall Tag > Converts to IfcWall > Section by Tag results in Brick Hatch > Also Paint with Brick Material > So IfcMaterial is Brick > Render as Brick > Present as Concrete
• CONCRETE WALL: Concrete Wall Tag > Converts to IfcWall > Section by Tag results in Concrete Hatch > Also Paint with Concrete Material > So that IfcMaterial is Concrete > Render as Concrete > Present as Concrete

It does seem to me that the best way to do it is Section by Material.

What would the benefits be for someone to use Section by Tag?

In example, would there be benefits of splitiing wall tags into a tag for each material of walls we have in a project?

@Cyentruk @jure @napperkt @curic4su @bmaxim it would be very nice if you could chime in!

Thanks in advance!

[bmaxim]

Hi, @JQL
The ifc thing is beyond me, I don’t think I should get into discussions about what I don’t know
What I can say is that I only use ‘‘Section by Tag’’, the most I’ve used is ~20 additional section tags in a single project.
I haven’t understood yet if it’s relevant to this topic and\or if this could help

[jure]

We use Section by tag. Primarily because we want to keep the elements that are not cut by section as white, which is traditional way of representing construction drawings (although I’m aware that you don’t care much about traditional ways anymore ) .

The other important reason is that this way we are free to use whatever material and textures for rendering. So we can represent the same model as monochrome model with visible section hatches and also as a textured model for 3D presentations.

To achieve this we use separate tag for each of the building materials (concrete, brick, insulation etc.). We sometimes also use tag texture on non-cut parts for some additional effect like highlighting parts of building that are designated for demolition.

As for ifc we map the element tag (which is one level above material tag) to the ifc (ex. Str.Slab => ifcSlab).

So the hierarchy would be the following:

• Element tag group (ex. Str.Slab) for ifc type
  → Material tag ( ex. # Concrete) for curic section

[JQL]

@jure

So the hierarchy would be the following:

• Element tag group (ex. Str.Slab) for ifc type
  → Material tag ( ex. # Concrete) for curic section

So:

• You apply the material tag directly to geometry inside the slab group ou do you apply the tag to a material group that contains the geometry and is inside the slab group?
• You are tagging instead of painting in order to assign a material to an object that is independent to the way it’s going to be presented?
• Your objective is to be free to apply any texture to the object and display it as color by tag for construction documentation?

That’s interesting. I get the same results like this:

• I assign a tag and a material to group which gives it meaning and gets converted to Ifc;
• The material paints the element and is supposed to also be carried out to Ifc;
• If I want to create a style by layer I can use layer colors for that,
• If I want to create a white style I can use either front face and back face or hidden lines style.
• If I want to show hatched sections I use an overlayed viewport in Layout.

Do you think there are added advantages to the workflow you use, like quantity take offs or something like that?

If stylistic issues would be solved, what other issues does your workflow allows that using tags for meaning and visibility and materials for materiality doesn’t allow?

[JQL]

You can get on discussions about something you don’t know and get to learn them if you’re interested. Anyway, my question was mostly about curic sections and it’s integration on 5d+.

You’ve been using it and so I thought you could have interest in the subject and valuable insight.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Cyentruk]

@JQL

• aterial to group which gives it meaning and gets converted to Ifc;
• The material paints the element and is supposed to also be carried out to Ifc;

Hi Joao,
I have a document about this (that can be opened from click into “INFO” inside 5D+, too). The same hierarchy with @Jure. All “pink(s)” must be group/component

Download here: 02. sketchup_tag (en).pdf (974.9 KB)

[Cyentruk]

@JQL

Do you think there are added advantages to the workflow you use, like quantity take offs or something like that?

If stylistic issues would be solved, what other issues does your workflow allows that using tags for meaning and visibility and materials for materiality doesn’t allow?

The advantages of using Cut by Tags compare to Matetials is we only need setup hatches for some type of “base” materials once (and keep it as a template), not depends to materials name (which can be changed often). The materials are painted on a surface can not represent to the base material of an object. They are just surface material.

For example: you have a plate which is a top of a table. It base material is plywood, but the top and bottom surface are finished by wood verneer, and the sides are cover by plastic.

In this case, in the workflow, I still paint to 6 surfaces of the plate with 6 different materials as I want, but the object will be tagged by tag “m_wood” (wooden in general). And other objects are similar. We just tag them, don’t care much about it’s material, no matter their material name can be changed by requirment of design.

To the basic, we classify object inside Building Elements to Material categories by tag, it helps us in quantity take off and filter bulding elements with material categories, not a specific material.

[jure]

@JQL

You apply the material tag directly to geometry inside the slab group or do you apply the tag to a material group that contains the geometry and is inside the slab group?

I apply tag to the group that holds geometry. This way I can add tag to faces for extra features like creating thin materials (like waterproofing membrane) with Curic Section Multimat feature

@JQL

You are tagging instead of painting in order to assign a material to an object that is independent to the way it’s going to be presented?

Yep. And I use 5D+ Tag to quickly apply tags to objects or geometry.

@JQL

Your objective is to be free to apply any texture to the object and display it as color by tag for construction documentation?

Yep. And I never use layered viewports in Layout.

@JQL

Do you think there are added advantages to the workflow you use, like quantity take offs or something like that?

I believe 5D+ workflow is made with tag by object in mind. There are all sort of Annotation features that rely on information that it gets from tags. However it also uses materials for things like labeling finishing surfaces.

Therefore I think you’ll get more out of it if you use tags.

With tags system you can also represent surfaces in a different style for construction documents than you would with materials for rendering. You just apply a texture to the tag itself. This way you have best of both worlds in a single model.

It is also useful for quantities takeoff where again you can use both surface tags or object tags. And even material tags.

This way we don’t need to use stacked viewports in Layout. So yes I believe there are many benefits using tags as your primary classification for objects.

[JQL]

Sorry guys,

I’ve still got a lot of doubts, if you bare with me…

@Cyentruk

I have a document about this (that can be opened from click into “INFO” inside 5D+, too). The same hierarchy with @Jure. All “pink(s)” must be group/component

Thanks for that. I will check it.

@jure

We use Section by tag. Primarily because we want to keep the elements that are not cut by section as white, which is traditional way of representing construction drawings (although I’m aware that you don’t care much about traditional ways anymore ) .

It’s a blend of a technical drawing tradition that still is common language that makes sense, along with some “not that new” approaches that are able to add value to drawings.

For my technical presentations materials are important as they represent a lot of info and I’m still able to use them for all sorts of presentations or strip them off with styles when needed.

@Cyentruk

In this case, in the workflow, I still paint to 6 surfaces of the plate with 6 different materials as I want, but the object will be tagged by tag “m_wood” (wooden in general). And other objects are similar. We just tag them, don’t care much about it’s material, no matter their material name can be changed by requirment of design.

But we can also paint the table top component in wood material and then paint the faces with any other material, or use the same material but fine tune the position the texture for rendering, if needed.

@jure

Yep. And I never use layered viewports in Layout.

I used to do it because of Layout not exporting viewport layers to DWG, and of course, I would also take advantage of that viewport stack for lineweights. Now I export DWG from sketchup using @curic4su toCAD so I don’t care much about stacking viewports anymore. As we are able to display textures for walls and section materials, a single face style as shaded with textures solves it all.

Also, the different line weights can be set on Layout by using model tags, but I don’t bother anymore.

What I miss is the ability to hide section cut line from sketchup styles.

@trent we have talked about this before, and it would be awesome if it would be addressed as Sketchup API already has a variable for that, but it’s not honored in Layout.

@jure

Yep. And I use 5D+ Tag to quickly apply tags to objects or geometry.

I can’t control it. I keep changing object tags of selections without noticing.

@jure

With tags system you can also represent surfaces in a different style for construction documents than you would with materials for rendering. You just apply a texture to the tag itself. This way you have best of both worlds in a single model.

I can easily control that with my workflow and I don’t duplicate actions. Render engines don’t aknowledge Sketchup’s tag colors, so anything related with assigning materials to objects, for us, doesn’t require a double action. We paint an object and it’s valid for construction documentation, rendering, ifc export and we would also like it to be used for quantity take offs.

@jure

With tags system you can also represent surfaces in a different style for construction documents than you would with materials for rendering. You just apply a texture to the tag itself. This way you have best of both worlds in a single model.

Seems like added level of complexity that we shouldn’t require as we will work on painting materials anyway, for rendering and presentations.

@jure

It is also useful for quantities takeoff where again you can use both surface tags or object tags. And even material tags.

@Cyentruk

To the basic, we classify object inside Building Elements to Material categories by tag, it helps us in quantity take off and filter bulding elements with material categories, not a specific material.

This is very important to me. Quantity take offs aren’t yet efficient on my side, specifically because of all the layers that a wall carries. This could justify the tradeoff.

The question is why wouldn’t you be able to tag surfaces if needed, for some quantity take off reason anyway. If that is the case, we might do it with the two methods. Example:

• Paint a wall component as concrete, tag the component as wall, get inside it and paint a face as waterproofing.

Why would the above have disadvantages when compared with:

• Tag a wall component as wall, group it’s geometry and tag it as concrete, get inside that group and tag a face as waterproofing

Assigning layers to geometry like faces, to be able to measure them, like waterproofing membranes, has never occurred to me before, I’ll explore it. Thanks!

@jure

Therefore I think you’ll get more out of it if you use tags.

Definetely agree here, hence the question.

However, can you elaborate on what you can do with your method, that you wouldn’t be able to do with mine?

Is it because of “Auto IFC”?

@Cyentruk I haven’t tried the Sketchup 2025 IFC exporter to see how it exports a material applied to an object, but is your “Auto IFC” capable of assigning materials painted to objects as Ifc Material Properties or will it only used material tags?

With my method we can avoid an extra material group level in the model hierarchy and avoid duplication of work for construction docs and rendering.

It seems logical to me that an object can have both a material and a tag assigned to it.

One doubt I have on that is, if that surface is exported to IFC as waterproofing, will it still be part of the wall in the ifc model, or will it be removed from it and the wall will become non solid?

[renton555]

As @jure alluded to, I think if you’re using the multimat feature of Curic section then that requires a cut by tag configuration. This allows you for example to have a component wall tagged as “metal stud framing”, then tag the finish faces of that component as “16mm drywall”. This saves having to draw all that geometry to represent drywall in section cuts.

And then you still have the flexibility to apply whatever paint colors or materials you want in order to use the project spec finishes to render in perspective, isometric, and elevation views. As @cyentruk said, finishes for jobs can vary wildly but the number of material types that shows up in your projects is much smaller and can be standardized in the Curic section tag table.

The same sketchup model template file can be set up with those standards so that Curic section always behaves predictably. And unless you wish to change your standards, it shouldn’t have to be adjusted with each new project.

[JQL]

@renton555

As @jure alluded to, I think if you’re using the multimat feature of Curic section then that requires a cut by tag configuration. This allows you for example to have a component wall tagged as “metal stud framing”, then tag the finish faces of that component as “16mm drywall”. This saves having to draw all that geometry to represent drywall in section cuts.

That’s a huge benefit.

Are you sure section by material instead of tag wouldn’t allow for that configuration?

I would paint a group/component with concrete material, section by material would create the hatch for concrete on that wall, and then I would configure the thickness of a material to create the 16mm hatch.

I will have to test it eventually, but if it wouldn’t allow, maybe @curic4su would be able to support it in the future.

It doesn’t mean I don’t see the benefit, in the case of using this particular feature, to have the drywall as a tag, and allow for tiles, paint or wood finish to be independent.

However, as I have a lot more detail that needs to be manually drawn into details, I don’t know if this particular feature would be useful enough.

Does Curic multimaterial allow for more than a single extra layer? Can it have multiple material layers? If that’s the case, then maybe that would be a good enough reason for change.

@renton555

And then you still have the flexibility to apply whatever paint colors or materials you want in order to use the project spec finishes to render in perspective, isometric, and elevation views. As @cyentruk said, finishes for jobs can vary wildly but the number of material types that shows up in your projects is much smaller and can be standardized in the Curic section tag table.

The same sketchup model template file can be set up with those standards so that Curic section always behaves predictably. And unless you wish to change your standards, it shouldn’t have to be adjusted with each new project.

That’s definetely another very interesting possibility.

We can also set our templates so we have standard materials that we apply to groups/components and are ready for Curic Section by Material. This allows us to apply generic materials as concrete, wood, brick and so on to objects, and then use extra materials for rendering or presentation purposes.

If curic allows for this specific feature to exist with section by material, it would open up more possibilities.

However, I do see the benefits of having tags in order for us to use this multimat workflow,

[renton555]

I think multimat can be done with by material as well but that hems you in to not being able to have custom finishes on faces. If you did, you’d have to set up custom multimats for each new finish of each project (1000s/infinite possibilities). Better to just use a few dozen material “types” that use tags.

[JQL]

Yes, that’s what I concluded. I have to think if I want to use multimats. They are a very cool idea, but lack the complexity I need and can only solve by really drawing details manually.

[nmason]

I use Curic Section by tag, but I haven’t needed to get into 5D+ yet.

I have a workflow that might not be relevant. But here it is:
-make a “section model” for section scenes (no materials applied)
-make a “finish model” with materials for elevation scenes, and section scene backgrounds
-for section scenes, apply curic section by tag to section model (comes in as locked geometry), select all + hide, creates a section only scene
-Assemble section views in LO with viewport sandwich: finish model bottom, semitransparent layer, curic section only scene on top

probably gibberish, but works for my application.

[JQL]

You like to separate your models and use one for each purpose? Why not do it all in a single model?

[nmason]

I work on smaller buildings, and I do a lot of confined masonry walls with plaster finish over top of everything. It mostly had to do with lack of time to find the right extensions for hiding lines and painting inside nested groups easily.

It allows me to get accurate sections on every wall, but the effort of managing two models is probably a losing workflow for other people’s large projects. Boilerplate details probably work just as well. I’ll let you know if I ever get back to a one-model workflow.

[renton555]

@Cyentruk may correct me but I don’t think the goal of these workflows is to generate perfectly accurate section details. I think those probably still need to be Nick Sonder style boilerplates. The multimat is just a way to have a single component that has two layers when it’s cut through. You might have multiple multimat components as part of a wall assembly, or it might just make more sense to copypaste a boilerplate section detail.

Even if not using multimats, it’s still better to use cut by tag, though. Tags allow for abstraction and categorization. Tag “m_masonry” can be used for materials that include cmu block, brick veneer, paver, thin brick, etc without having to set curic section parameters for each and every one of those. It also allows you to paint uniform finishes in fewer clicks (paint the entire wall component blue instead of having to paint each face). It’s just simpler with tags.

[JQL]

@renton555

Even if not using multimats, it’s still better to use cut by tag, though. Tags allow for abstraction and categorization. Tag “m_masonry” can be used for materials that include cmu block, brick veneer, paver, thin brick, etc without having to set curic section parameters for each and every one of those. It also allows you to paint uniform finishes in fewer clicks (paint the entire wall component blue instead of having to paint each face). It’s just simpler with tags.

It does make sense, but I could do it with materials too, by having a set of materials that would serve as base for everything and would be applied to components/groups and not faces. Then, on faces, every other material would serve as presentation.

That does pose the problem of messing the model up when painting. A material applied to a group/component, could be easily overriden by a render only or presentation material.

However, tagging materials and creating extra hierarchy to assign material tags to geometry, doesn’t fit well in my mind.

I see another advantage on that tag system though…

For the most simple objects, like a simple wall or a simple slab, having a new hierarchy level for setting up materials seems overkill, however, most objects aren’t simple. A Layered wall will have at least two subgroups like insulation and brick, a window will also have two subgroups like wood and glass and most building elements that matter for architecture will be like that.

This process of assigning layers to materials could solve the problem of IFC classification of complex objects while posing no issue with simple objects other than that added complexity:

Ifc Classification of Layered Building Elements - Tutorials - SketchUp Community

I guess I’ve been convinced guys. Thanks!

[JQL]

I have a final question (for now)

I will start by using the same amount of material tags that @Cyentruk provides in his 5D+ templates.

Have any of you expanded on this list or deviated from it, for some reason?

EDIT: Sorry! A couple of questions after all:

If you are using Auto IFC and if you are assigning tags to objects for Ifc Classification it’s better to use color by tag:

• If you tag a window and it gets i.e. blue, you know it is correctly classified.
• If you now go and tag the materials of the window, when seeing objects by layer, you’ll see the colors of the materials tags.
• Won’t you get lost without knowing if your windows are correctly tagged?

[renton555]

Another thing. The nesting of materials within materials is far less visible than nested tags, both in native interface and 5D / curic flavored interfaces. I would only nest materials in each other as a way to save clicks (example: painting a storefront component with anodized aluminum, then the nested glass panes as glass). Other than that I think it gets too confusing to be worthwhile.