I see how that setup is efficient and sensible. Every plan I do will have 10 foot wall sections panelized, each requiring an associated schematic. I have included in this model all dimensional lumber, sheathing, cladding, casing, trim, foundation and roof rafters, but no connectors, hangers, hurricane clips, or any of that, although I plan too after approval from relevant officials of the overall plan.
I expect to have many changes to my standard approach to these over time. You have already caused several as expected.
I was planning to keep these plans as one plan, but I can see how the number of scenes is going to get very large.
How do you manage a large amount of scenes when there are 50 or more construction viewports needed in a plan?
Some scenes can double up and you can modify the existing view in LayOut (so elevations can usually be handled with 1 scene and then just changing the standard view in Layout). But I just live with it, and I break my drawings into multiple files. And once you do a few sets youâll be able to find ways to make more efficient use of your details / scenes / etc.
Here is the overall schematic from the previous. All the TJIs, hangers, SIPs, timbers, etc. - the timber frame will get a separate set of shop drawings that will also be PE stamped. The SIPs will get a set of fabrication drawings by the manufacturer based on these drawings.
Looks like I will need to make seperate files as you suggest. One pretty picture file, another for construction details, probably one for each floor actually, to get all the individual wall panels documented, with the regular MEP, floorplan, etc.
Architectural (with sections and sometimes wall details), window schedules, etc.
Structural and framing - as shown above - foundation to roof with any modeling as required, often including SIPs and etc.
Timber Frame - I only do custom timber work - about 2-4 custom homes per year (plus lots and lots of schematic modeling where I turn over the project to various firms).
And sometimes electrical coordination / interior design / etc. I will occasionally model and show ductwork / etc on my plans only to make sure we have the structural elements in the proper location, but I leave all MEP to experts and only show design intent.
And occassionally I break the structural / framing into 2 sets - one of the overall plans and elevations / sections and another of details.
I will take your advice there, but have all professionals internal here. I will integrate their respective contributions but will need to reflect basically everything within the model, as well as obviously on the plan set itself.
Have you noticed any issues with crashing or file resiliency if the drawing gets large?
One of the deliverables here is the model itself, one that includes all relevant objects.
My machine is a 2019 iMac, for general residential construction itâs been working fine. Yes, things get laggy and sometimes I get the odd crash, but I am fairly good about clean modeling as well as knowing when and where to use stuff from the warehouse (mainly entourage, furniture, etc).
To put everything in the same model consider that each component is a mini sketchup file, so if you are smart you can combine everything in a âmaster modelâ if needed. I do that occasionally for conflict checking - but I build my models all based on a wire frame guide - so itâs easy to copy / paste from one to the next.
The trick with combining everything is tag and scene control. Workable once you do a couple and get a feel for how to set things up.
Dave, I have been trying to utilize this method, however, how can I add dimensions on a separate dimension layer, if that layer is also hidden? That does indeed leave me with only model points to attach to, but then I cannot see any of the other dimensions to align the ones I am adding to.
Is there not a way to add dimensions to this, while other dimensions are still visible?
I donât understand what you are asking? Donât hide the Dimension layer. I didnât advise anyone to hide the Dimension Layer while adding dimensions. I suggested hiding the layer for annotations if they are getting in the way. That ought to be a separate layer from the one the dimensions are on. Obviously you canât hide the annotations if you need to see them to prevent the dimensions from from inflicting with them.
Generally in my workflow I do all the dimensioning first and add labels or other text afterward. Dimension locations are generallymore critical than the locations of the labels and other text so putting in dimensions first makes my work easier.
Ok, then there was a fundamental misunderstanding earlier, I only added dimensions. There were no annotations to snap to when I added the dimensions that kept changing. I must have been snapping to the dimension lines themselves.
I have a totally different issue now I cannot make headway on. In this image, the dimensions do not add up. I have carefully placed them now multiple times. In AutoCAD, I use the dimensions to calculate things, but in Layout, I cannot even get them to add up to the same value even though they are snapped to the same objects. Can you tell what I am missing here?
Ok, but before troubling you to that extent, here is a 1 minute video showing me actually putting down those dimensions. Is it obvious what I am doing wrong?
Without seeing the LO file I would conclude you are running into cumulative round errors. Change the precision for all of those dimensions to 1/64th in. What do you get then? The overall dimension is within 1/4 in. of the sum of those shorter dimensions. Within your precision setting.
By the way, youâre creating conflicting dimensions doing that.
Are you saying that I cannot use a 1/4" precision with layout? The contractors and client do not want to see 1/8" measurements. How can I ensure that these work out mathematically without giving clients something they will reject. Do I have to hand calculate them all and modify the text?
Ok, so when I place windows and doors and other objects to which a minor dimension is attached, I cannot evenly space them, but must ensure, at the time of modeling, that they are on exactly round dimensions, correct?
It seems I should have run into this type of error in AutoCAD as well, but never have, not in the 3 dozen projects drafted to this point. Perhaps CAD is covering for these cumulative rounding errors and I simply did not notice as the math always seemed to work out.
No. Iâm saying that if your model is created as imprecisely as this one shows, you are inducing cummulative errors. If working to the nearest 1/4 in. is fine for the contractor, do your dimensioning that way. Donât create conflicting dimensions, though. Dimension what is critical. If the locations of the windows and doors relative to the corner of the structure are important, donât show all of the dimensions in a chain between the corners.
It is entirely possible to create the model to higher precision that you have here and thus avoid the conflicting dimensions.
Why canât you place them more precisely?
Put in dimensions you need the contractor to hit. Probably the outside dimension is fairly critical but on site it will be determined by the foundation underneath it, right? Then whatâs more important? The distance between centers of the window and door? Or is it the distance between wall corners and the center of the left window or the corner and the door center?
I expect you are either modeling with higher precision in AutoCAD or you havenât noticed the rounding errors. This really isnât specifically a SketchUp or LayOut problem.
