There has to be some base elements that are consistent. I’d start with those. Losing out on having preset scenes & styles, section planes, shadow and fog settings etc. would be a shame over still developing a tag system. Mine are always developing but the base structure of scenes, styles and tags has been relatively consistent now for 6 years.
I use a very simple tag structure (19 - 20), since a complex one is not really needed to achieve the end product. Complex tag systems are typically related to one’s past experience with ACAD. Simply think about your process and how/why you need a particular layer. You may find that you don’t and can easily place something in a different context for visibility.
Nesting groups really cuts down on the number of tags. You only need one wall layer ( unless you need to define different construction technique, then maybe two or three). Same for any other element. These are then nested in overall floor groups that are assigned tags for the entire story (I’ll typically have just two of those tag types unless I have 3 stories). It makes controlling the model visually very fast.
Simplified tag structures speed up every aspect of a project.
The end product one is trying to achieve can vary quite a lot.
My brothers and I are acting as the designer, engineer, builder, concrete contractor, carpenter, roofer, plumber, painter, drywall slingers, etc. who, once we have completed the design, will grab our tools and start digging footings, doing 80-100% of the building ourselves.
So, I need to model all the structural details- every stud, rafter, joist, and beam because we need to plan out how to actually construct our project.
I also need to do a takeoff of all the materials, and since I use quantifier pro for this, I need individual tags for all dimensional lumber, sheet products, fixtures, etc. on top of needing to control visibility, not as much for layout yet, but for simply being able to isolate parts of the model while working.
As Nic mentioned, I would just re highlight the importance of a simple tagging structure. Do your best to make your tags as broad as possible. As you know, less is more, in just about all aspects of life too, funny how that is hey haha…
You can simply do the same you are doing with grouping those elements you want to separate, then use “hide rest of model” when working and quantifying. There really is no need in SU and LO for massive tag lists in general. They are a key reason people end up with issues in LO. I know you are not using LO, but proper grouping of things you want to isolate would reduce your tags. As an example you could place your studs and sheathing on one tag. You just need to group the studs from the sheathing separately. Then when you select the group and key command “hide rest of model”, only elements in that group are visible for both presentation and quantifying.
Completely agree with Nic @LinearGraphs. Here’s a useful way of simplifying and thinking about when you need an additional tag. For me, tags do the following otherwise I do not need more tags. If you need to make a new tag or a tag in general than it should either be used to show or hide something within a scene or to be used to automate the layout viewport drawing process, otherwise a tag should not be made. If you keep it simple in that kind of framework of thinking, and keep your tags as broad as possible like I say, than you’ll be able to keep a small list of tags for your template… That’s how I look at it anyways. It’s either for a scene in sketchup or layout or it’s pointless to make a tag (mostly)…
Also constantly questioning if you need something or not, like NEED it… I have to do this all the time. Being a deeply analytical person, my first instinct is to make things deep and complicated, simplifying is always the hardest part but most useful.
The concept you propose is not compatible with the way I do things. I need tags who’s purpose is not primarily for controlling visibility in layout. Sometimes, the model itself may never even be sent to layout.
Allow me to explain myself…
I need a tag structure that includes something like this:
Q-SPF 2x6x16
Q-SPF 2x6x10
Q-SPF 2x6x8
Q-SPF 2x4x16
Q-SPF 2x4x10
Q-SPF 2x4x8
Q-LVL 2x12x20
Q-LVL 2x12x16
Q-LVL 2x12x14
so on and so forth ad nauseam…
and here’s why…
I actually do this a lot, but not with anything created by Medeek’s extensions. The Medeek suite of extensions is in control of the grouping of wall assemblies and messing with that would remove the parametric function of the extensions. The wall tool also creates and applies tags to the objects and reloading a wall or editing its parameters would wipe out all tag changes.
Normally, all you can do with a Tag (layer) is turn visibility on and off, assign a color (if you’re even using that) and a dash pattern. All you do when you put multiple things on a Tag, is group them for that visual control.
Also, I wouldn’t normally say to use Tags to track specific kinds of objects. I would thing Group and Component names would be the best choice for that, but it sounds like you’re saying its the Quantifier plugin that’s driving this need for tags? I’ve not used it, so I’m not familiar with it.
Yes. It’s the best way to use the plugin in my circumstance.
It can generate reports by simply adding cost data to components and groups, but I didn’t set things up that way because I wanted to measure the linear footage and divide by x to get boards which you can’t do with object cost data.
Also, the main issue would be telling what’s what while I’m building so that I don’t end up using the wrong lumber.
Hey, after watching your video and seeing your responses to everyone here, I think you’ve got things pretty damnn dialed and are possibly one of the most knowledgeable people doing reporting like this using Sketchup. My guess is that you’ve got an awesome system and have it way more figured out than most people, I’ve dove super deep on what you’re doing as well before so I understand everything you’ve shown in the video and said within the comments section here. I don’t have any other thoughts to share…
I know (ahem thought) you are simply trying to say that I’m not doing myself any favors by not listening to the advice of many more seasoned users of this software.
Im not trying to be rude, or seem obstinate, nor have I been stuffing my ears full of in light of everyone’s suggestions, and if that is the way I have portrayed myself I am very sorry, and I repent, but I am having a hard time understanding how some of the suggestions I’ve received would apply to my current way of doing things, and I’ve attempted to be very clear about why.
It seems to be everyone’s point of view that the way I am doing things needs to change if I am to work the most effectively in SketchUp.
I appreciate your input, and look forward to hearing more of it so I can become better at this program.
So, using tags as a means of separating objects by their associated cost data isn’t the way to go then.
If I am to use quantifier, I should be using the material or object cost data menus, is that right?
Who are you directing this reply to? If this reply is mainly directed to my latest comment to you prior to this reply of mine now, than you’re certainly assuming some things wrongly.
I will clarify one more time. I do beleive you have a deep understanding of the program and tags and I don’t see any other way I can help. Text is hard to interpret unless you read it as it is written. I meant exactly what I said.
I was replying to you. Sorry I forgot to hit the “reply” button.
I did assume that you were being sarcastic, and were trying to say, “good luck (cause you’re a lost cause and too puffed up and too stubborn to change your ways)”
It is pretty hard grasp the tone of ones speech through text, so I’m sorry for assuming that. I definitely don’t want to be seen that way, or worse actually be in that state.
If you’re saying what I am doing really is out of your scope of assistance simply because it’s not the normal way of doing things, I get it.
With all sincerity, I apologize for the confusion. Thank you SO much for the help.
It’s not because it’s not the normal way of doing things, what is normal? Between building designers using Sketchup, I think your setup is arguably the best I’ve seen in a long time, I know this because I myself have gone incredibly deep trying to find the best solutions for building designers using sketchup.
I’m definitely trying to make the set up as dynamic as possible. Being able to copy and paste, import and export, tags and even entire tag folder structures may be an extension that I will want to attempt to code myself since I’ve been diving into the realm of RUBY recently.
I personally really dislike the idea of having to have tags for 2x4, 2x6, 2x8 and espcially if you have to go even more specific and name out tags with now 2x4 spf, vs 2x4 lvl. Currently this is what @jgbrock1 does with his setup for estimator. This is not in my opinion how tags should be used, because you’ll end up having endless amounts of tags… There needs to be a better way to quantify objects and I don’t know if currently there is… The best option in my mind would be to have an estimator type plugin quantify and organize the objects like that based on the component or group names… I looked into it once, I know there are issues like you say @LinearGraphs and it cannot be done that way very well… Super frustrating… It’s a gross feeling system that should be more streamlined for quantifying… Some of the setups in Sketchup and Layout are so entirely manual they just feel gross to setup and use. I hate it…
I don’t like all the tags either, but the tag folders make it Soo much less painful to look at.
I’ve tried Brock’s version. There are things that are SUPER cool and better in some ways than the QP, but I didn’t like having to mess with excel so much, and it’s about a gazillion times the price over time.
I’s good to hear that I’m not alone in the search.
There will be something someday. I hope…
Ultimately, a dude who’s been estimating with a pencil and a calculator for 30yrs is gonna’ smoke me all day, and probably not be very far off. But hey, I don’t know how to do that and my chicken scratch handwriting looks terrible, so I’ll keep working out the kinks until someone or something comes out with a better way.
in light of everyone’s suggestions, and if that is the way I have portrayed myself I am very sorry, and I repent, but I am having a hard time understanding how some of the suggestions I’ve received would apply to my current way of doing things, and I’ve attempted to be very clear about why.
