As above, I would like the stacked dimensions to snap to one another so they maintain consistent distances from one another and can be moved together. Is this possible? Its default in other cad software. Makes the drawing massively neater and speeds up work time
Rodog has several issues with the same tool, so I propose to move the discussion to this centralised thread. it’ll be easy since most of it is probably linked
please refrain from debating here, where it’ll create duplicate and triplicates is triplicate even a word ? idk.
I’d also love this to happen.,
bottom part of my message.
horizontal snapping is easy because of inferences. vertical cohesion can be solved by grouping your dimensions. they’ll move as a unit.
This should all be automatic and won’t grouping dimensions make them disconnect from model?
grouping them just allows you to manage them easily.
here, a drawing, and groupes dimensions (I clicked one, they all come)
after editing. still grouped
follow up here
What if you move the group up or down in order to have them in the right place? Won’t that disconnect them?
What you did there was change the model. But not all model changes update dimensions correctly.
If you group dimensions you have to double click edit the group and only after can you edit dimensions. It’s cumbersome.
Edit: scribble in iPad is really bad.
see the thread linked just above your message. it bears the answers you seek, and it’ll avoid repetition in multiple places
We are of the same thoughts. Grouping dims is not workable. Then I have to double click edit the group. Another step. another slow down.
Doesn’t help anyway I just tested grouping stacked dims and moving them and they detach from the model just the same as if they were ungrouped.
Sorry for posting back there but I just wanted to connect with JQL’s comment and show shared sentiment.
Sorry but I think your solutions don’t solve the issue in the original post. Also, I think replies to this thread should stay here. It’s simpler to handle
yeah, as I mentioned here
stacking dimensions vertically is actually a matter of clicking the correct inferences points on the model. no shortcut, no way to combine existing dimensions.
stacking them horizontally is again a matter of grabbing the inference of the neighbouring one. and from the examples provided by Rodog, they are already doing it fine.
yeah, the stretch thing, grouped or not, will actually… stretch the dimension. And yeah, if you want to move them without stretching, it’ll disconnect from the model.
This is the limit of layout, a tool trying to be both autocad, indesign, illustrator and powerpoint. if you want your dimensions to move and keep their distance, you’ll have to stretch them line by line. and yeah, it’s cumbersome, but again, as many more have said on this forum, layout is super limited compared to other solutions.
That’s why the feature request is useful. To solve some of the issues that still hinder us. I don’t understand why your way of solving these questions is first to point us to a different solution that doesn’t reply directly to the question and then assuming that the limitation of Layout is something that we have to accept.
We accept it, because we use it, but at the same time we make these feature requests, hoping it will be improved.
Layout needs a lot of love from the Sketchup team, much more than what it has been getting.
Here here. I completely agree.
I have no idea if @ateliernab is employed by Sketchup (Trimble) or on their development staff. (Are you?) I assume he is just an incredibly generous and clever enthusiast who tries to help people out on this forum out of his own time. I appreciate the tips and work-arounds which at least help a bit when your in the middle of something frustrating but unfortunately I feel like these community members are ultimately just acting as a screen, when the requests should really be penetrating straight to development staff.
My clients love that I can orbit them around their Sketchup model quickly at any stage and model for them while on a zoom screen-share in a modelling environment they can follow. This is one of the reasons I still use it. But this doesn’t cut it it if the documentation takes twice as long to produce and looks half as good.
deep down I’m a nice guy. I don’t work for SU. and I understand the huge inertia SU has, because it belongs to a multi billion dollar company, yet it is only a tiny fraction of it.
so, you ask for stuff, and the honest answer would be “no, it’s not possible, please ask it to the long list of stuff people want, and move along”.
or, because I’m a
nice okay guy, I could take time to give you ideas for alternatives, potential solutions that could make your life easier, or not. The reason I did an off target answer is that I didn’t get at first if it was an issue of vertical snapping, horizontal snapping, or a cohesion issue. turns out it’s the three. and
if the frist two are simple a matter of inferences, the third one is just not possible right now.
yeah, it does, layout is the think that makes SU a pro software (it was pretty clear in the make/pro era). that’s the topic of a lot of topics these days, but yeah. LO probably needs to be rebuilt from the ground up as a proper CAD layout tool OR finally have a system of extensions just like SU that would allow users to patch their needs, I agree with you. I know that, you know, and I’m pretty sure most of the SU team that comes to this forum knows. an I really wish they had the power to do so.
the boat is taking water, we don’t have enough life vests, and all the community can do is either ask the parent company to provide some, or learn to build makeshift ones.
I think I’m about to jump ship…
Fair enough. Just seemed you were trying to argue the request wasn’t useful. I’m sorry.
Think twice. For small projects su + lo are the best.
This topic was automatically closed 183 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.