Proposal of how to solve the section-fill-color problem

[jure]

Thank you for sharing your drawings! What an interesting (and complex!) project! Those curves must be quite a challenge to properly detail and construct.

@JQL

You can see that solid filled colors that are displayed in Layout as vector, get converted into Solid hatches in DWG. In the screenshowt you can see one of the solid hatches being selected at the right. I still have an hybrid viewport in the Layout Stack, which exports the image in the background.

Now that is an interesting trick I didn’t know! So in vector mode solid fills from sketchup get exported as solid fills to DWG but in hybrid mode textured fills all get joined together into one single bitmap underlay… That’s interesting… I wonder what SketchUpTeam was thinking when implementing it this way…
What is also interesting that even sold cut

@JQL

I like those 3d details when I see them. In my case I avoid them as they would have to be built differently for every model and disconnected from model, as the model has much lower level of detail.

I wish there was an easier way to also get proper hatching into DWG though. Your approach of using solid fills is interesting though and might just do the trick - untill we get an upgraded Curic Section or alike… It’s important to note that “Export for Sketchup” needs to be off otherwise solid fills won’t export as hatches into DWG.

Obviously detailing sections in Layout is possible, even though drawing tools are very basic. If only Layout API would finally allow developers to write extensions, then we would quickly be able to work much better and faster in Layout also.

[JQL]

Detailing in Layout makes no sense to us from a workflow perspective. We like to tightly relate details at a high LOD with the model at a lower LOD. To make this we need to iterate between model and details and usually we make a lot of changes to the model while detailing. Drafting details in Layout would force us to break the relationship between model and detail, so we don’t find that very useful.

At the same time, Layout is so slow that it’s much faster to draw and think in Sketchup. The least amount of time lost in Layout the better.

Of course having better drafting tools in LO would be great (all tools should match Sketchup tools)

Other workflows might look at it differently.

[napperkt]

I also “think” 3D and in Sketchup. We are doing most of the detailing here and hardly ever draw “on top” of viewports in Layout.

If it’s a very situation complex we sometimes have a separate “detailing-model” file that contains all the tricky bits and we section cut these in order to create the dynamic Layout-Files. In these cases the Layout file actually is compiled out of 2 Sketchup-Files - out of the actual build-model for the 1:50 scale drawings and the detailing-model for the 1:5 scale drawings.

Trying to steer back to what this topic started with: Drawing everything in Sketchup is the way to go, and Trimble: please give us more (and easier) control over how to display that in Layout. HATCH FILLS based on Materials as I proposed it - (or tags, if that’s easier to program, I could work with that) would really solve SO many problems and would make Layout a lot faster.

Why?

Simply because 75% of our Viewport-stacking hacks would disappear (yes - these are hacks!). And fewer view ports on the page means fewer viewports for Layout to render. Also it would mean less fiddling with stacked viewports - less user interaction meaning, less clicks meaning faster results. Come on guys?! How about it?

[JQL]

More reasons:

• Each stacked viewport is an extra viewport Layout has to render.
• If we have to use the stacked viewport hack (I also see it as a hack) we have one more viewport to manage when editing our document;
• Scene management, model management and viewport management are also non linear and add up exponentially to total documentation time.
• If a model can only be fully shown with stacked viewports it means the actual model is not working when you share it with other stake olders, even if the 2D output of the model is working.

[jure]

@JQL

Detailing in Layout makes no sense to us from a workflow perspective. We like to tightly relate details at a high LOD with the model at a lower LOD. To make this we need to iterate between model and details and usually we make a lot of changes to the model while detailing. Drafting details in Layout would force us to break the relationship between model and detail, so we don’t find that very useful.

@napperkt

If it’s a very situation complex we sometimes have a separate “detailing-model” file that contains all the tricky bits and we section cut these in order to create the dynamic Layout-Files. In these cases the Layout file actually is compiled out of 2 Sketchup-Files - out of the actual build-model for the 1:50 scale drawings and the detailing-model for the 1:5 scale drawings.

I agree… This is exactly what we are now also transitioning to from the old approach where we manually draw details in Layout… Creating detailed 3D models on top of regular 1:50 scale model seems to be a better way to go. In 1:50 model we simply tag those parts of the building that are too low in detail to be displayed at 1:20 or larger scale with a special LOD tag so we can turn them off, and then we create a more detailed part just for that particular section of the building.

@napperkt

Drawing everything in Sketchup is the way to go, and Trimble: please give us more (and easier) control over how to display that in Layout. HATCH FILLS based on Materials as I proposed it - (or tags, if that’s easier to program, I could work with that) would really solve SO many problems and would make Layout a lot faster.

@colin and @SketchUpTeam are you paying attention?

[JQL]

Now, to make everything even more interesting, I’m not that concerned about hatches, as I showed before with solid color fills, but what would interest me a lot, would be a parametric way of offsetting sections and make geometry glue to sections too.

What I mean is that some details could be added to sections in some parts and stick to them when the sections moves around:

• Some would be made by simple tools like offset - We would mark a few of the section’s edges (or mark the faces of the model that generate those section edges so that those edges have a specific automatic offset and a specific fill). This would create a new fake layer with the section tool inside the section. Moving the section would keep that offset on the corresponding face/edge of the section.
• Leverage Hole cutting components functionality to stick detail components to an edge of the section. This way we could, in example, add dwg details of a window frame to the section of the window. Moving an active section wouldn’t fill the window but would display this component instead. Any manufacturer could then create low LOD objects that would generate complex 2D sections. We could also desing typical details that we would apply to our own models.

So, actually, I don’t need section fills, what I need is a way to add parametric detail to a section cut face by creating a set of tools that would automatically draw details based on the geometry that’s being sectioned.

This would really help us have a simple model with complex 2D detail that would be truly related to model and not fully manually drawn.

I can’t grasp the complexity of developing such a tool, but I imagine it wouldn’t be easy. I also don’t know how to make it work seamlessly along details that would have to keep being hand drawn nor can I imagine how to blend multiple sections like these.

I just think that having that would be unvaluable.

[bmike]

I have been trying to do more in SKP and less in LO, and I am finding it faster to model details either as a separate ‘construction model’ or as a snippets for details as needed. I tend to ‘model like I’d build it’ - which is a curse and a blessing sometimes.

I am working with heavy timber construction and primarily residential and I only do 2-3 full sets of drawings per year, my focus being primarily on the schematic design phase with my clients who are usually builders or timber frame specialists. Clients typically take on the final documentation as required with their local architect / engineering teams. But I am doing more of these, so I am needing to streamline the system.

I do not use stacked viewports for sections and plans anymore, only using them if I want ghost for section cuts / etc. (I have in the past made use of them).

Here are some details of 3 recent projects, 2 are built, one is in the pre-construction phase.

Custom barn, lightly insulated for cars / storage with a ‘hang out loft’ (being built):

Custom home, inherited from another architect, with permission to re-work and change the project to better fit the owner’s site and needs (being built):

Currently in pre-construction awaiting budget numbers from various subs:

[AK_SAM]

I also work similarly…wall types/structural elements need to be hatched. I also model 2d details inside 3d objects. Drawing in LayOut is an absolute last resort.

Sadly ive actually avoided using lots of sections in projects because they are just so convoluted. I tend to draw elevations or cutaway perspectives in sketchup that merely look like sections.

When i do use sections;
Walls and slabs sectioned in plan view are easiest… i just paint the lowest face of the wall with the appropriate hatch material, which is visible when looking from above when the section is cut.

For details, one thing I do that helps me is to create my components ( like window, or a wall) with those 2d details (glazing , jamb, frame) included inside. But i dont group the details…so if the window is resized/stretched then the detail is also resized.
Those details can be placed on different tags (yes this breaks the rules!), turned off when doing 1:100 scale and turned on at 1:20. (For imperial folks; this equates to a dozen and 12/15 perches to three thirds nautical fathoms).

Walls and other structures in Cross Section are more difficult.
Sketchup really needs allow section fill to adopt the default face material for that object.

Also it woukd be useful if section cut edges adopted the object’s Tag colour, or the object’s default edge material. At least then we could get some objects shown as dashed or greyed out.

It would also be nice if sketchup created a section fill for a non-solid object. Sketchup should decide to fill an object with a section fill the edges would create a face on the 2d plane.

[napperkt]

@AK_SAM

(For imperial folks; this equates to a dozen and 12/15 perches to three thirds nautical fathoms).

this ABSOLUTELY made my day!

[colin]

@Mark and @trent are better people to ask.

[nmason]

Sorry to revive the thread again, but I just discovered in Curic Section that you can apply a negative multimat value to display a thin layer on the outside of a surface. Just thought that was a neat detail that could be added to @jure’s rough Curic Section manual. Being able to make the multimat value positive or negative can be a helpful feature.

[jure]

Oh wow good find @nmason! I will add it to the manual!

[Sonder]

All of these apply if you do not use templates utilizing a proxy model. I have always used stacked viewports even before the term existed, so for me it is not a “hack”, but the fastest way to achieve what I want - a mix of both raster, hybrid and vector rendering in a single drawing. I don’t understand the last bullet since I share my models with lots of people that don’t necessarily utilize my method or even SU.

The biggest problem people see with speed is hybrid or vector rendering entire models. Isolate the things that need to be hybrid or vector rendered and they render instantly.

[JQL]

I share models with people and there are lot of issues, both with Sketchup and Trimble Connect.

A couple of examples:

A section cut face that I can see in Sketchup, can’t be shown in Trimblr Connect.

A set of stacked viewports in Layout only makes sense in 2d, as it reuires a pile of scenes stacked together, in Sketchup 3d it doesn’t look the same.

You say you do stacked viewports because it’s the fastest way to achieve what you want and you started using them long before they were called that way. I also feel the same but they are not the fastest way to do what I want, they’re the only way. And I feel it shouldn’t be like that, it should work much better. So I’m forced to use a convuluted method to do what I need, a method that is smart but uses tools that weren’t originally designed to do that, aka hacks or workarounds. Stacked viewports is a hack because there’s no other way to do some standard stuff I need as an architect.

Past a certain point, nothing in sketchup is simple or seamless, we require this sort of hacks and sometimes extension developers aseemble plugins that try to automate the hacks, like skalp, curic and the likes.

[Sonder]

Well, all I can say is you likely need to reassess your process. I never deal with the actual act of “stacking” the viewport or creating the scenes in SU. They are all setup in my templates. All I do is update the reference and sometimes adjust the position of the view ports to better fit the page. This works for all my projects which no two are alike. The only thing consistent between my projects is the process in creating the documentation.

I don’t use Trimble Connect so I can’t speak to that process, but I do coordinate with both ACAD export and SU/LO files and have yet to have an issue come up in my consultants being able to use what I send them.

Have you tried using the process I mention with a proxy model? Once you’ve set up the particular template in both SU and LO, you don’t mess with some of the issues you mention.

[JQL]

We always end up like this where for each flaw I see in Sketchup, you assume your process fits my needs and I should be doing things differently.

I have a lot of different processes, all of them work, though all have different flaws, I respect that you have yours that works for you, but Sketchup isn’t flawless and we all use workarounds to make it work like we need.

[Sonder]

I’m only trying to help. When I see people having issues, I chalk it up mainly to process since I don’t have these issues.

Processes always should be refined with time and sometimes a complete change is necessary. Mine has changed significantly since Matt and I wrote the last book. I update my templates every few months.

The process I use now is really fast and simple since everything is preset. The key was developing templates with a simple proxy model in my SU templates that is already referenced in my LO templates. Using the templates consistently is the key to speed. Doing so eliminates importing models, setting up scenes, tag systems, viewports, layers, page numbering etc.

This leaves much more time for designing and specific documentation, rather than starting from scratch and inserting a model into Layout.

[napperkt]

I am torn between what both of you are saying.

On one hand I am thinking: ok - you know what - whatever works: fine. Meaning - instead of whining about some Feature X that does not work the way I envisioned it in a software just learn how that software happens to tick, make the best out of it and get your actual job done.

On the other hand - there are some things that simply can’t be done in Layout NATIVELY that after so many releases should have been addressed because they are the critical next step in the process. Adding section-fill colors / hatches (see how I tried to steer back to the original topic here) natively is one of them.

There are user friendly, semi-intuitive ways to do that that don’t require a complete rewrite of the software. Adding the option to set up hatch-fill information for materials or tag/layers that would influence the section-cut-fills in Sketchup/Layout would be a very welcome start. It’s one piece of data added, doesn’t interrupt current work-flows and doesn’t confuse the type of users that need everything super-easy (because they can just ignore it). It would give us some very powerful new options for creating awesome documentation drawings.

I dare to propose that @Sonder would not MIND too much having this feature at this disposal as well and would maybe create even BETTER documentation drawings. Even though his process is well thought through and gives him little headache, the way it is now.

We should all blow into this horn, instead of arguing whether stacked viewports are a good idea or not. @Sketchup: Give us some more native tools to up our documentation drawing game! Give us MATERIAL BASED HATCH-FILL-PATTERNS!

[JQL]

I know you’re trying to help, but at the same time, I feel you don’t believe that I also get work done, but I don’t like what I have to do to get it done.

I’m working in some projects that have completely different needs, the only one I could use templates with, which is an isolated single family house, is the only project of that kind that I’ve been working for a long time.

Another project I’m designing is a masterplan. The first I did of this size.

Another one is a townhouse, with several floors, first floors are existing, the others are new, with neighbour buildings that are taller and smaller, where we have to represent all of the buildings in the street front.

It’s obvious templates won’t help me between these three projects, but I also don’t care. I don’t loose any significant time setting up my Layout file with floor plans and sections. Templates and rendering speed are the least of my concerns.

However, how sections work, that they are single plan sections, that I can’t break section lines, or that I need to use several sections for simulating a breaking section line, and that this means that I can’t show this breaking line section in 3D, or that it means that when I work on section details I have to cycle between both sections in two scenes, this kind of thing hurts my feelings.

A decent scene manager with groups. A decent section manager that wouldn’t force me to use the outliner or change scenes. Multiplanar sections or clipboxes. A stronger method for creating interior elevations of a room. A multitag system that would allow me to isolate parts of the model in a more elaborate way without having to think on an elaborate intertwining between grouping hierarchy and tags. A much stronger xref system. A better way to organize the model towards IFC compliance. A more direct approach to secion cut face fills, colors and hatches and, eventually, drawing section details (this works rather well actually). A way to control lineweights without having to use stacked viewports like an improvement of the styling system that would allow a single scene to represent several different linestyles, face styles, without depending on tags. A better way to change Layout object styles, like changing the style for all dimensions, for all texts or leaders, for selecting objects. Layout drawing tools that work exactly like Sketchup. Actual vector hatches in Layout that can be exported to CAD without looking like opaque solid fills when we open the DWG file. A better DWG export method that would work as mix betwee the two existing methods. A way to export all Sketchup tags from a Layout viewport into DWG. A way to create bettwe DWF files.

There are so many things that don’t work well or work under par, that we have to find ways of dealing with, that either we opt them out, like I sometimes do, or that we have to really deal with or decide if it’s time to move on.

I can find workarounds, I can deliver, I still prefer using Sketchup because of the way I model and the ability to design while modeling, but documenting is nowhere near other packages.

[JQL]

You did well to get us back on track, but I cannot get back to it, only mildly. I also talked about section fills on the post above… :S