did you have this problem with previous SU versions?
no i didnt
nonetheless, unless someone else has insight into this, we don’t have much to go on and by sharing a scrapbook someone might be able to get some idea of what could be going on…
Wow JQl,
Really nice listing of many of the hard won (and hard learned) LayOut workarounds necessary to navigate, function, and produce any workable product in a reasonable time frame! The big gap between the things you can attempt to do (inadvisably) and the actual methods necessary to accomplish them testifies to LayOut’s operational theory versus real practice. Why are all these acknowledged workarounds still necessary? Because Trimble won’t step up and fix LayOut!
2 Likes
…and if your project is not so complex (and you’re not on a mac!?) then Layout is most likely very good and you have few workarounds if at all.
Like @DaveR, layout has got better for me over the years
This is also true. Not only Layout is fast for small projects but it also produces incredibly rich output, beautiful drawings and is a pleasure to work with.
In all accounts except drawing accurately like you would in CAD, it’s much better than typical CAD.
For me the issue is related to the fact that I want to carry that experience, and If possible improve it, to bigger projects.
As I stated before I believe the team is well aware of Layouts shortcomings, and actively trying to improve it. I suppose Layout, in it’s inception was a side kick for some presentations that people were producing in SketchUp. As us users started pushing it to more demanding use cases that the software wasn’t capable of, Layout team suddenly had to face the fact that they had to try to pushing it as far as possible, but maybe the road is bottlenecked. Many of us need improvements yesterday to keep using Layout.
Personally I would like to avoid packages like Revit in the future if I could. A snappier layout is what would allow me just that.
4 Likes
Precisely!
1 Like
For me (a Mac user) Layout has actually gotten worse. LO2019 was the last version that actually worked for what I do (residential Architecture).
3 Likes
Ditto. I’ve stayed on 2019 (even though I have a 2020 license) as 2019 seems to be the most “performant” and had the transparency and style bugs fixed in Layout.
2 Likes
Ditto here too.
I paid M&S one last time (my license renewal was Nov 3), so eligible to upgrade to 2021, but still on 2019 — since my LO 2020 experience was not at all good.
I like most of the recent feature additions/changes in both SU and LO — and team members are saying all of the right things — but LO performance is horrendous on complicated sets and large models (and yes I know all of the work-arounds).
The (visible) pace of development is a perpetual disappointment, made evident every time a new version is released.
I don’t want to slag the individuals involved —as any interactions on the forum show them to be conscientious, (mostly) open to feedback, and empathetic to the users expressed concerns.
But there’s something seriously wrong here: either in corporate priorities dragging the SU team in irrelevant directions, and / or budget /resource allocation for SU/LO development. (I’m going to assume that the problem is primarily corporate, rather than the alternative — that it’s product management priorities inside the team which are distorted / misplaced)
We keep hearing how the subscription model is necessary to assure continued development, and that the elimination of perpetual licenses will somehow benefit end-users — as the changes will allow an accelerated pace of evolution. But so far it’s mostly talk, and marketing-speak (along with sprinkles of corporate gas-lighting).
Like most users I want to stay with SU, which I love, but we desperately need LO to step up to match: lose the excuses; fix the performance issues; align the UI / tools across SU and LO; enable better integration in both directions with external CAD workflows; finish the LO (live) extension API …and eliminate the endless work-arounds that demanding workflows require.
Fixing LO should be the primary dev priority until it’s brought up to par with SU.
12 Likes
Says it all, pin this up on every wall of the Trimble Executive offices… particularly marketing… they need a kick up the butt!
PS, I wonder how many in marketing have ever used SU/LO?
2 Likes
I haven’t got 2021…but can someone please tell me if the output resolution has been increased beyond 300dpi?
I would pay the subs for this alone.
Thanks!
I am curious to know what the use case is for >300dpi.
I take that as a “no” 
My use case is making PDFs of technical drawings (site plans, mostly).But the output quality of many items (dashed edges, textures), using hybrid or raster mode, isn’t great. I started a thread about this a while back.
We use A3 because it’s more print-friendly (and bind LayOut PDFs into documents containing other A3 pages, so A3 is our default). A1 gives better resolution , of course, so that’s my backup option.
PDFs are made (for clients, local authorities, colleagues) to view on screen, including zooming in or viewing on high res monitors since making physical prints these days is becoming rarer.
In terms of workflow, one site plan sheet at 1:200 scale is much easier and quicker to make than creating four pages with individual parts of the site shown at 1:100.
Cheers
Sam
I was thinking about printing. I remember the argument for higher resolution PDFs. I don’t think that has changed.
Yes, db11 makes the case quite well!
Very well said db11!
I don’t intend to slag the individuals involved either, I’m sure Adam and his LayOut team have their hearts in the right place. So yes, there is something seriously wrong - Trimble simply MUST give Adam the priority, personal and budget to really fix LayOut, rather than just make little tweaks around the edges!
Can’t they see the tremendous potential that a robust and powerful “LayOut Pro” could have for the entire industry? Sheer folly and blindness!
6 Likes
Thanks for all the input. I have been watching this.
This is by all means just a guess. However, it seems that improvements to LO might be more important to many more of us than Sefaira, replacing Dynamic Components with Live Components and PreDesign.
And I may be way off base here, but let’s see.
What development would you rather see progress on?
- Sefaira
- PreDesign
- Live Components
- Lay Out
0 voters
2 Likes
This pole, even if interesting, is in a post about Layout, so it is biased. Everyone in this post will vote Layout, of course.
I’d rather see it at the entrance and see what would happen if everyone visiting the forum would face it, what would the answer be. That might be useful for Trimble, though they have other means of collecting knowledge about their clients.
3 Likes
Even better if Trimble polled its paying customers on where we want developments priorities focused on!
4 Likes