I have apparently made a post in the wrong place. It’s all about the above LC and how it could be improved. I’ll post this now and return with a link.
“Internal Residential Door” => Residential-Interior-Door
I have noticed another thing about these LCs. If you alter one, it whirs away for a few seconds before responding, as if it is getting instructions from head office. It’s not a great problem if you only have to do it once or twice, but for repeated editing, it would be a right pain.
I tend to work on older houses where no two doors are likely to be identical. So you have to keep editing widths if you want accuracy. You want to be able to change that kind of thing as quickly as possible.
And just to complete the picture, here is what I would suggest the LC needs to show as a basic minimum. The references indicate the variables that one ought to be able to change.
The question marks are about the panel. I see that, rather weirdly, it has been modelled as a single unit that is deeply housed into the top rail, passes right through the lock rail, but is not housed into the bottom rail at all. I guess none of that matters too much unless you wanted a section through the door, but is it rather sloppy drafting, I wonder?
IRD.layout (383.0 KB)
Thanks. We are aware it takes a while to load up and are coming at the issue from a few angles. We agree… it’s not fast enough yet.
For reference, SketchUp skips head office and goes straight to our Cloud Engine
Right. So, presumably that engine is either underpowered or overworked. Or both.
Joking aside, is that the way LCs are always planned to work? If so, it suggests that there will be no end user input into their design. In my view, that would be their biggest Achilles’ heel as well as their USP. It would mean that their flexibility and number will be severely constrained and that, unless Trimble employs much more experienced designers (who know more about how building components are made and used), their usefulness will be, at best, niche.