Example workflows using Export to SketchUp from LayOut?


I’ve read this thread twice now and still have no idea what this setting does. Does it export everything in paper space, regardless of whether it’s a viewport or not? Does it keep paper space and model space as two separate things but with the same value? How is this making SketchUp play better with the DWG? Is this a workaround for an issue in the SKetchUp DWG importer?

Whatever the setting does I think it needs a more explanatory name. Naming things after what you intend people to use them for is often a bad idea, as users come up with completely different use cases (there could very well be some third party program out there that works best with “SketchUp” DWGs). It’s usually better to name something after what it does or what it is.


Or is it adding some extra metadata, ignored by other programs but used by SketchUp to know how to import the drawing?


When I saw first saw this feature I also didn’t understand the logic of using the file format from a competitor to import LO back into SU knowing you can read LO files with the ruby API and easily can create native SU entitites!


I will try to summarize this so that all comments are addressed. In 2017 we added the ability to export LO entities to Acad placing LO entities to Paper Space and SU to the Model Space. Sense then we have had a number of requests to bring back the ability to export all entities both LO and SU to the Model Space.

That is essentially why we did this with some added benefit for those that do choose to use LO entities in SU.

Handshake between SketchUp and LayOut is very important to us and until we resolve some interoperability snags this was a simple way for us to provide some needed back and forth.



So is there any difference in LO created arcs/curves/circles/splines for export to .dwg? As opposed to an export to .dwg from Sketchup arcs/curves/circles/etc. having #sides to contend with.

Ps…sorry for the lame q’s regarding the .dwg export…as I still haven’t installed 2019…hope to in the coming week


Wow, that’s a really good point. Yeah, why convert to dwg when it could go straight to SketchUp directly using the API?


It’s true, that after reading the contributions to this post, one wonders (especially as an outsider to the insider’s priority list of “we have had a number of requests to bring back the ability to export all entities both LO and SU to the Model Space.”) how this came about.

This makes me so very curious that I can’t contain myself any longer. Who is the person with the list? What and where is the list that we can view these requests based on a popular vote in comparison with other requests for the last several years that mentioned nothing about this feature?

And who decided that the logic described would benefit the community above other inovations and additions that would affect the community as a whole?

I can’t but wonder if this addition is by (contrary to the report of “so many user requests” - my translation of your words) someone who had a sword against the grindstone of his own… and trying to convince us that this addition is by popular demand! Where are the posts on the open forum, SketchUcation or on the Facebook SU wall that shared this as an open concern?

Of all the requests over the years… it seems like the power of a mouse’s squeak… get’s more attention than the lions’ losing their voice over the cry of new additions.

However, since, as you state, this has been brought up enough that investment of development implemented it… please direct us to these enigmatic, but powerful popular demands obviously posted in public where we can all see. I must have evidently missed this chapter in the dev book of open requests.

And no, I’m not playing some devil’s advocate. What I’m asking for is the link(s), page requests, poll or poll results that reveal this was a community request or priority at all. I am VERY interested in knowing how the “one” or the “few” were able to succeed far beyond the non-integrated requests of the most or many for additions to the SU 2019.

This addition just kind of ASKS FOR PROOF that it was a community priority as stated. I, we all trust what is given, of course. However, because we trust you… we trust you will be able to provide us with the evidence or “cries” for help on this. Where is it? When doing a search… no results show up. So… looking forward to you helping us see “that need” expressed. Unfortunately… I missed it entirely. I hate that. Thank you for directing me to the forum and or FB SU page request links so that I might understand “their” need better.


So it could be called “Export to model space”?


if ‘they’ are an enterprise with a couple of thousand network licenses, ‘they’ will have more sway…

and no one will be allowed to disclose who ‘they’ might be or even if ‘they’ exist…






you can read LO files with the ruby API and easily can create native SU entitites!

Matt, am I reading this right? So… from LO to SU… dwg would be imported without an SU conversion? Or am I missing something?


Can someone elaborate on this? How exactly do you do this?


Ruby has the capability to read LayOut documents from inside SketchUp. See here https://ruby.sketchup.com/Layout.html


Thanks Matt. This is over my head. I don’t equate coding to clicking on an export to button. I’m an end user and I’m a ok with that. So I may find the previously mentioned function useful for passing some simple 2D geometry to SU. I also think this may be the first step in making the channel between LO and SU more of a two way street.


Personally I think this has a lot of potential as it gives people unfamiliar with traditional 2d cad and vector software a way of working in 2d with an easy move into 3d.
There are regular questions on the various forums about how to draw floorplans and such that can be problematic in sketchup itself. How to keep things planar. Why don’t faces form etc…
I can see a whole new bunch of people sketching out their ideas in layout and then easily translating that into 3d. Not everyone thinks in 3d.


I agree w @Box, from my experiences the world is populated by a great number of people who are more comfortable thinking/working in 2D v 3D.

The development goal of creating an actively linked “View Page” of LO in SU, combined w a robust 2D tool set in LO, IMHO, is a worthy Trimble objective that can grow the user base, and be of benefit to all of us.


Hi @Charlie_v I hope this will answer your question:
In LayOut
Exporting with the ‘Export as Native DWG/DXF Entities’ we convert Arcs and Circles to true Arcs and Circles in the export. If a series of Arcs are joined (or using the freehand tool) in LayOut then we export those as splines. When ‘Ignore fills’ is unchecked fills are exported as regions.

In SketchUp:
When you Export 3D Model… we export Arcs and Circles as true Arcs and Circles. When a face is present a polyface mesh is exported

When you Export 2D Graphic only line or polyline segments are exported.



Hi @duanekemp, regarding the work on Importers/Exporters I personally conducted interviews with approximately 50 working professionals (Architects, Landscape Architects and Interior Architects/Designers) using SketchUp and LayOut to produce construction documents at the same time working with consultants. The take away from these interviews was a matrix identifying pain points and hurdles users have preventing productivity and interoperability. We then had to ask ourselves what can we accomplish and what will provide the most value now and for the future with the time that we have.

Please know these features/improvements were not a result of any one isolated ‘squeak’.



So we have the ability to have true Arcs and Circles, just Export a 3D model! That will be a big help when we go from SketchUp to CAM.
That makes 2019 a very big improvement for my work flow to the CNC.
Thanks Trent for the clarification. Need to download 2019.


Yes this answers my questions perfectly.
Thanks for separating the answers specific to LO/SU



Trent is right on the mark, but to help provide context, here is a small selection of the threads from the past two years that provide some additional context. There may be more, I just did a cursory search.