Hi All,
I have just tried the live components for the first time. A fantastic idea but just as buggy as ever.
Basic stuff but very frustrating. What has happened to the testing team or are we it???
Any ideas on the material would be appreciated.
Which door?
I find it difficult just filtering to find live components. I agree that whilst they have much potential, they are quite disappointing in other ways. The doors I have looked at have clearly not been designed with any depth of architectural knowledge, so their usefulness is limited.
I think we probably are.
Yes finding them wasn’t the easiest even with the LIVE COMPONENT filter set.
It’s the sliding door.
I need to be able to customise a lot more settings than just the height and width.
Handles, thickness of frames, MATERIAL, lock or no lock…
The glass isn’t even a transparent material.
I hope that I am missing something fundamental here as in theory they could save a lot of time but only if somebody that builds models has input into their development.
OK, so I assume you are looking at this:
Some of the windows and doors I have looked at do have options for that as well as changing ironmongery, but it’s inconsistent. Inconsistency seems to be something of a feature with LCs. I tried to combine several windows that looked as if they were of similar design but their height was measured differently. I had to scale them in the end to get them to fit together.
I just hope the LC development doesn’t go the same way as DCs. Announced to great fanfare and then with no further development, just becoming a footnote in the history of Sketchup.
That’s the one.
Yes I hope so but I think Trimble are more about spending money on new logos than creating functionality that works. It they can half tick a box they seem happy.
The funny thing is that developing something like this probably takes a shed load of time and money. So you’d think you’d want to see a return on investment. Creating something half baked just annoys and disappoints, especially when you think what much more useful things (as far as end users are concerned) that development time and money could be put towards. Also, you’d think they would have learned their lesson with DCs!
But maybe there’s a cunning plan we can’t see…
let’s hope but I doubt it.
I have used this product for a very very long time. It is going backwards. I have started to look at other modelling products I am that frustrated with it.
Well if you find one that looks better at a similar price point, let us all know about it!
will do. I was just going to add a smiley face but that doesn’t work either without 5 characters!!
That’s a forum limitation. Nothing to do with Trimble (apart from their choice of forum platform). 
Well, yes - the Live Components are still in “Labs”. We know it’s not quite finished, but wanted to get some feedback on it. Live components are still under development.
Materials are treated as any other parameter, so authors/designers must specify them. If you can’t find one you like, or it is not an option, you can bring the component into SketchUp, Right click > ‘Detach definition’ and assign materials the old fashioned SketchUp way.
As for sizing, it has been a little tricky for to find the best way of describing some things - I think most of our doors use the size of the door itself, and any frames are derived from that. That being said, I take your point about the opening. We are aware of this issue and have some ideas about it, but it is a little way off. In the mean time, I will pass this info onto our content team.
And also thanks for the note around consistency - I’ll also pass that back to our content team.
I think the system has some great potential.
As it stands the technique is perfect for things like furniture or landscaping, where specific accuracy and symbology isnt the highest priority.
(for what it’s worth, I would describe a door in “leaf” size (the moving part of the door); the opening size is described and created via the architectural framing plan. There are something like 20+ pieces of “door” when you consider archtiraves, leaf, jambs, glazing, hinges, door furniture (knobs), etc, etc. How far do you go?
I haven’t had a recent browse through the LC library, but perhaps there is an issue where munching into the architecture cookie likely results in biting off more than one can comfortably chew.
Many users of Sketchup for archtiectural models are moving into a BIM-style modelling environment where accuracy, metadata and customisation (or, actual manufacturer-specific sliding doors) are required. In that context, the entire model works as a design & documentation system aligned to local industry practises & outputs. Components need to work in 2d plan, 3d renders, cross sections and all on specific tags and line styles according to that SU user’s setup. One of the flaws (i’ve often said) about SU is that it leaves SO much to the individual person to figure out their own workflow that it’s resulted in there not being any globally-recognised or consistent workflow or setup.
It is for this reason that so many SU architects spend a reasonable amount of time creating and managing their own component libraries (and aligned with specific extensions they may have). I havent done a formal survey of this, of course, but I do know that Revit and Archicad emply massive amounts of effort and time into developing region-specific architectural components and standards.
There is stilll a huge need in the SU world for “conceptual design” where any old slding door is fine and it just has to look reasonable. LCs are fine for that now but, from what I can gather, the tech (parametric engine) would actually be competent not only in providing conceptual modellers with a sliding door to adorn their building mass, but it could create entire buildings and libraries of typologies.
As for DCs…Whatever they offered was awesome (in theory/potential) but I have to admit I didnt even get into them in a proper way, despite there being obvious value in my sort of projects… In hindsight I should have paid a company to develop my own library of DCs. Maybe LCs are doing that work now, for free?
Thanks for the update Kyle. Trimble’s communication with its customers is poor at best which isn’t a criticism of you personally. I am delighted that you have made the effort to respond so thank you. Defining it as ‘in LABS’ may be a term that people within Trimble understand but the rest of us paying customers don’t. A banner stating that it is a prototype would help and then we would be aware that we are involved in unstructured testing. We could then provide feedback on the many ways it needs to improve from how we use these things instead of how a developer thinks we use these things and as an ex developer the two things are generally very different.
As I said, it is a great idea if it is developed properly
It seems reasonable to start with the door size as they are often standardized. Frames are a different matter. Here in the UK, we distinguish between “linings” and “door frames”. Linings are simple elements that derive their robustness solely form being fixed to structure. Plus, they have no cills. Frames are most often used for external doors. They are thicker than linings, rebated, weatherstripped, and provided with integral cills that give the whole thing rigidity. There is an argument for having separate LCs for doors and frames/linings.
I worry when I see things like “most of” as it suggests lack of uniformity. I have found that there is lack of a uniform approach in the LC windows. That kind of thing really kills the usefulness because if you have to spend time fiddling with things to make them work, an experienced user will just make their own from scratch or use something from their library. Speed is critical.
