Door / Window Tags in Sketchup vs Layout

sketchup
dimensions
layout
text

#1

Hi There,

We have been playing around with methods of creating Door/Window Tags in construction drawings and been frustrated with the limitations of Layout again.

Frustration 1 being there is no equivalent to Components in LAYOUT. an often heard complaint.

Accordingly we have been testing workarounds for these tags in SU,

but then of course then you hit the limitations of notation in SU.

It seems with plugins most developers resort to 3D text but the problem there is they are not editable.

After playing around with SU text and dimensions [with of text labels floating all over the place]

The lighbulb clicked on the idea of using dimensions to create label tags.

Number of advantages

1] Editible text
2] Styles can be changed post creation
3] Visiblity can be controlled by view angle automatically [eg text in plan view, text in elevation view] - an dimension entity capability.

Disadvantages

1] You normally cannot hide the dimension lines associated with the dimension text

To create the Window / Door Tag below [or any tag] we

1] Created a simple arc to dimension the diameter [ this is only temporary and only small] [context click to get the diameter option]

2] Using the Dimension tool - dimension it and then move the over the object to conceal the extension lines

3] Edit the dimension text with wording you want [ eg D1 ] in our sample

4] Delete the actual object dimensioned [it is redundant]

5] Create a shape to represent the tag outline [ our sample doesn’t have one]

6] Same the dimension as component.

Now you have a tag that is editable, can be used on Elevational and Plan views [ the text will autohide depending on the view angle].

We have created a component with both the plan and elvations tags in it, and we attach that to any existing door component to add tags when progressing from concept to schematic design.

PS

I am surprised I have not seen any extensions using the inbuilt capabilities of the Text and Dimension tools in SU.

Are their capablities not accessible thru the SU API? …

PPS. I am not a big fan of di-linking dimensions and notes from the object they refer to. LAYOUT does try to keep that association but it is easily broken and as compenents are not part of the LAYOUT toolset updating hundreds of individual groups separately is not a path I want to go down…

It would be great to hear from anyone else has successfully used this or similar methods in to notate drawings in SU.

Regards


#2

Long ago, @Wo3Dan shared a model demonstrating the use of Dimensions as Text tags.
Here it is, in its original vintage SU 6 format:

2D text via dimension.skp (24.0 KB)


#3

That’s an excellent idea, George. And if those were made into components instead of groups, they could be saved in a library for future use.


#4

I certainly agree, but credit @Wo3Dan for the idea, not me.


#5

Thanks Guys… Actually it can be multi-line

just add \n to force a line return


#6

@Wo3Dan’s SU 6 model is dated 6/22/2010 on my system.
Six years later, little has changed.
That is, SU still lacks fundamental model annotation and dimensioning tools.

Here, we have the most informative and comprehensible means of design communication ever devised.

But instead of utilizing the full potential of an active 3D model to convey design information, we resort to pasting pictures of the model on paper. The move from 3D to paper takes time, money and leaves behind vast amounts of information.

To me, developing a fully functional set of annotation and dimensioning tools would prove far more beneficial to the future of SketchUp and its users than continued refinement of paper tools reminiscent of the 19th century.


#7

[quote=“Geo, post:4, topic:31762”]
I certainly agree, but credit @Wo3Dan for the idea, not me.
[/quote]Thanks George, let’s split the credit.

Maybe yes. \n. But then I didn’t know at that time.
Like adding <> makes altered dimensions associated again, including a value.
But that wouldn’t function here since the dimension is inside a separate group (or component).


#8

Sorry, I didn’t mean to take anything away from @Wo3Dan. He had a great idea.