Leave SketchUp and those other web and Ipad versions alone, just focus on Layout. Imagine if all the development time and energy was expended on Layout or perhaps a new Layout 2.0. I am convinced that such a move by SketchUp and Trimble would have very substantial dividends.
9 Likes
Hey there!
Just a thought, but maybe they already foreseen the future and know that 2D drawings and blueprints won’t be necessary at all?
With advancements in technology like LIDAR, AR, AI, and all other things I am not aware of now, it’s possible that traditional methods may become obsolete. So why bother?
Just something to consider!
When a 42" touch screen desk that can be viewed in extremely bright conditions, deal with water, dust, and extreme weather becomes as cheap, as durable, and as mobile as a sheet of paper, we will always need 2D.
Or maybe in the future they’ll be using specialized augmented reality goggles to view the whole project at 1:1 scale. Then I guess you wouldn’t need prints because you’re literally walking through the building as you’re building it.
3 Likes
I like the AR goggles idea or some sort of cool shades the construction guys can wear that do the same thing. Shoot, most buildings will be 3D printed in five years, wood and paper will all be a thing of the past.
Our firm use to use the Augemented Reality feature until one of the updates changed the process to make referencing reality harder. We still haven’t figured out how to do it properly since then but the builders could use the IPad to see interior spaces and we would walk around on an empty site with a client to see their building (in AR) before construction.
It was super useful for a communication tool and after the builder would see it in AR, they generally knew what to do without a drawing.
1 Like
We used AR for a while with builders but even if their is a superior workflow in the tech world, we’ll be hard pressed to find builders that are able use the tech in field. Most of our guys take pride in their carpentry and not their tech.
1 Like
There’s a difference between necessary and convenient. 2D may not be necessary for landscaping and a lot of building projects but there’s utility in having 2D options. For example, I did a project this year for a retaining wall. I produced point cloud models of the site, imported those into SU along with 2D surveys and drew a 3D model of the project. All of this was ignored. A 2D plan showing the proposed wall along with the survey (elevations) was sent to a structural engineer. The structural engineer returned 2D plans showing elevations of geogrid (reinforcement).
The landscaping plan was accepted by the client based on the 2D plan. There isn’t enough incentive for designers to produce 3D models when clients, and other stakeholders, and permitting (building permitting, watersheds, etc.) only require 2D. It’s a bottleneck to changing over to 3D… it’s more (unpaid) work for designers.
It could be argued that the imperial measurement system is obsolete and should be supplanted by the metric system. But even if it is preferable, imperial is entrenched. Just the number of tools alone that would need to be updated or replaced is staggering to consider. Then there is the fact that people are used to using feet, inches, etc. Many people would just keep using what they know (like 2D) rather than make the switch.
So even though I agree with you, when I get a question from the foreman, I pull up the SU model, and just send off 2D screen captures. The foreman knows I’ve created a 3D model and shared it with him.
Layout is more for creating 2D, ‘one source of truth’, documents. There’s a loud call for this even as BIM is developing.
1 Like
There will.be an answer … let it be…
Thats a song isnt it? LOL
1 Like
Agreed. Over multilple decades of use, I have found there are three kinds of people regarding CAD (at least on the Mac):
- People who know PowerCADD and think it’s the greatest 2D drafting program ever.
- People who don’t know PowerCADD and have no impression of what they’re missing.
- People who learned AutoCADD first, and HATE PowerCADD because it doesn’t work at all like PC.
…And we just got SketchUp for the Metaverse…
Absolutely could not agree more! What you are coining as “LayOut 2.0”, I have been pleading for and naming “LayOut Pro”. In other threads I have tried to examine WHY Trimble has so consistently neglected real LayOut improvements. How can a company that makes such a great SketchUp make such a weak LayOut?
To me it boils down to Can’t or Won’t. Can’t could mean the underlying code base is too old and archaic, requiring a complete ground up rewrite, maybe you have insights on this?
Won’t probably follows some numbers - not enough perceived user base, too expensive for the perceived return on investment, not enough of the right staff to implement, not enough people at the decision making level who CARE. What a great opportunity, squandered.
Clearly we need a more robust document production engine, sometimes if feels like Trimble is slowly and purposely sunsetting LayOut, in favor of some other, still unclear “grand plan”.
Thoughts?
2 Likes
Might I add to your list …
- People (me & don’t think I am alone) who used to be in the PowerCADD #1 group (for about 3 decades) but since made the jump to Vectorworks and not regretted the extra cost.
Can’t recommend enough to those willing to take the price hike and willing to invest in the software training. After almost two years, I am still exploring the seemingly bottomless set of built-in features.
For many years I have used SU and PCadd (instead of LO) together - just tired of the inefficiencies of swapping files between modern & vintage computers (PCadd does not run on the new macs - although the long promised but still-not-yet-released version is apparently now in beta-testing).
PCadd really was great in its day. However, the enormous computing power that modern day BIM and rendering applications require would not have been available in the 1990’s.
I still love SU for fast concept exploration studies and occasionally still use LO for very simple stuff - any projects that require more technical architectural modelling I now do start-to-finish in VW.
VW now has more powerful 2d drafting tools than PCadd incl Wild Tools (believe me I was surprised to discover this). VW also has a much more powerful 3d modelling core than Sketchup without the need for installing extensions, a built-in and far superior ‘Layout’ function for presentation & construction doc ‘sheets’, parametric ‘smart objects’, ‘smart’ graphic legends, ‘smart’ dimensions & gridlines, built-in data-base reporting, project renderings, animations etc etc etc. Regular updates, new features and plenty of on-line training for your annual subscription dollar.
I know I sound like a software salesman but I am not - just a Solo Practitioner Architect who has jumped to the next level (old dog still learning new tricks) and should have done it sooner. I agree with everything the OP is asking but myself have given up waiting (hoping) for a modern version of PCadd or a much-improved Layout ‘Pro’ or Layout ‘Version 2’ or whatever Silver Bullet professionals (not hobbyists) are waiting for from Trimble.
2 Likes
"The Times They Are A-Changin’ " - a song indeed.
19 Amazing Vintage Photos That Show How People Worked Before AutoCAD | Bored Panda
1 Like
Nice! 
Those photos take me back to working on my drawing board in the late 70s, early 80s designing parts for the Jaguar & Tornado external fuel tanks. Mostly we would draw on A0 film rather than paper and we all took tons of pride in our work which did wonders for our writing. Even now if I take my time people often think my writing is off a computer.
If Layout was available back then nobody would have complained. Sure, there are more advanced packages available now, but for what it does, and especially for what it costs, Layout, if learnt properly, is simply stunning.
Michelangelo produced the statue of David with just a hammer and a chisel - nowadays the hammer would be too heavy and the chisel too blunt.
The youth of today have been spoilt and now expect everything to work straight out of the box without having to learn anything 
Thanks for those photos. I spent many years drawing by hand, on Mylar, as a young architect. And I think fondly of all that time spent hand drawing, though changes were arduous indeed. I also very much enjoying working now in 3D. It’s the step in the middle I haven’t enjoyed: AutoCad, which I think of as The Great Black Void, and, sorry, but Layout isn’t that fun either, though I use it and am pleased with what we produce. I say “in the middle” because I am certain AI will bring us a new way to advance from 3D design to documents from which a building can be built. And I hope it will be as fun as all that hand drawing kind of was.
My uncle still uses his old drawing table with all those tools, he refuses to learn any cad software, he’s retired now but every now and then he needs to present documents to the city hall but hand drawn plans aren’t allowed anymore, I always help him to do the plans on computer, he always is amazed by how I model based on his drawings but he always tells me about the importance of hand drawing, I don’t agree with most of the things he tells me but I don’t argue, he’s old and he learned a long time ago. He thinks that even with all the new tools it must be made everything with hand before and use the computer just to print the documents. Though hand drawing is important specially for early stages in the designing process, I don’t think that all should be made by hand, I have a small drawing notebook where I do sketches, write some ideas or take some notes about the project but after that I go straight to sketchup to refine the ideas I have and be able to visualize better the volumes and how everything could work out.
Regarding drawing with old school tools - I think it is essential for designers / architects to have a solid foundation of being able to sketch from life - still life, life drawing, landscape, cityscape, etc. being able to quickly communicate is a good skill to have, and it also informs your drawings and design when you do move to digital tools - either 2d or 3d.
But - I had traditional fine arts training with 2 years of foundation (drawing, painting, design) as mandatory classes during a 5 year program. And I had 4 years of art and 2 semesters of drafting in high school - so I am biased.
3 Likes
Same here. My studies required a significant amount of fine arts classes…enough to graduate with both a BFA and a BA. My first jobs out of school were all hand drafting and rendering.
2 Likes
Now I’m curious Nick. What studio classes were your favorite and what is your BFA in?
My BFA was in Sculpture and I went on to graduate school in architecture at Columbia but left the program after a year and fell into timber framing.
My first few jobs in school were doing graphic design for a small firm - first day on the job burned my fingers setting type with the wax machine and then sliced my finger open prepping matte board for a presentation. Made a great impression.
Then I started working with a carpenter and woodworker and I got to do hands on work but because I could draw I took on sketching out the schematics for the work we were doing - and eventually the catalog and graphics and all that sort of stuff.
RISD’s program is unique. Every student regardless of their intended major has the exact same program for the first year. So you are taking classes with painters, illustrators, fashion designers, glass blowers etc. In the second year everyone moves into their major division.
The academic year was based upon three sessions - fall, winter and spring. Fall and spring sessions were major focused (for me, architecture). Winter session however, you would take classes outside your major. I took many classes in illustration and oil painting which were my favorite classes. I also did a session in glass blowing - even got to meet and see Dale Chihuly at work (I really sucked at glass blowing).
As architecture majors we were also required to take all the art and architecture history programs that everyone else had to do, we achieved the requirements for a BFA. My BFA is not discipline focused, but most of my credits were in illustration related classes. They really put the architecture students to the grindstone with the BFA requirements, which you were awarded after your 4th year if you stayed on track. Then the BA was received after the 5th year that was entirely focused on architecture for all three sessions.
It was a wonderful experience at an amazing school.
3 Likes