LO is unforgiving to mistakes. You make a single one and it dies on you. It really needs someone to think ahead and prepare what to show and how to show it, in order to achieve what they want. Even if everything goes well there are things that are impossible to achieve.
We can use it for what we need and CD are definitely one of the types of work we need to do. But CDs are not all the same, nor buildings are all the same, nor the amount of detail needed is all the same…
Completely agree. LOD project by project varies at times. The name of the software indicates to me it was never thought as a top to bottom package. It was a fun way to organize snap shots of a sketchup file. Documentation workflow certainly has to change based on the type of software a firm uses, but inventing workarounds or watching a LO file blowup is just not acceptable.
Thanks for the input and response Sonder. I am sure it is possible, which sounds like you have been able to do. But we should not be asking over and over for Trimble to solve basic issues with LO don’t seem to get resolved. Furthermore, just because workarounds are possible doesn’t mean it’s efficient or effective to build your entire documentation process around. And don’t get me thinking about the next steps of sharing these files with consultants.
I think most complaints are based upon people wanting it to work like other CAD programs. I for one am glad it doesn’t. Obviously I’m all for improvements, but any method should not be considered a workaround. The flexibility in SU and LO allow anyone to develop their own process. I’ve been very successful with mine.
I share ACAD exports all the time with surveyors, MPE engineers, civil engineers, fire sprinkler designers etc. I haven’t run into an issue yet where they couldn’t use what I send them.
I too agree it’s nice to not work and act like other CAD programs, but simple things like revisions and clouds, which should/could be somewhat standard become a workaround.
+1 on the revision clouds. Right now it’s either manual arcs or scrapbooks.
I would make this request a bit more general: user definable linetypes and “shape” linetypes. Being able to define a linetype made of arcs would be a requisite for a working revision cloud. One of the applications I use at work has the ability to turn any bunch of lines into a linetype.
You might remember the Layout example in SketchUp 8? It was a news stand or bus stop…
Layout isn’t great software but we can do everything with it if we can control it. It has come s long way, even if a bit too slowly