Small Library idea

[Chip_Cookie]

@3DxJFD

You could use a number of different models. But you can also use Scenes you create in SU on LayOut pages. Let’s say what you’re showing now is “Full Iso Foundation-Floor Connection”. It is from your Main Model, but tags for everything except what is visible are off. You can manage these detail views with Scenes and have a consolidated, single, Source of Truth

3D,

Please don’t worry about being direct. I have withstood much worse from reviewers and ‘colleagues’, and now prefer the direct route. You haven’t called my entire body of work “simple to a point, as in a dot”.

My problem with using the Single Source of Truth (SST, not be be confused with the other SSTs) is that my main model doesn’t currently have all the close-in details, like waterproofing, joist hangers, etc. To me, it seems cumbersome to include them. For example, why include 32 joist hangers in the main model when you can just say “see callout for hanger detail”. If callout is the right term!

Also, I think I will get mighty confused as I add objects of that detail. I can imagine my outline and amongst my tags across scenes with my components and groups melding into a sisyphean nightmare of geometry.

As for the floor joist to foundation connection, I am doing some research and talking to some locals. Once I figure that out I will remodel it.

In the meantime, here is the model with the ground floor wall framing. A couple of notes:

1. The CB will be covered by wainscot, so there is no allowance for sheetrock between the CB and wall framing.

2. I followed Aaron’s example in his wall framing video for the connections between the walls.

3. Hopefully there are no 1/16" wide cockroaches that have prevented a nice neat bit of framing.

4. There are some currently extraneous components and materials. I am keeping them around for possible later use.

5. I haven’t focused on the entrance platform or the exterior sheathing. Please ignore these currently hidden things.

Cheers,

T

Library v3.skp (1.3 MB)

[3DxJFD]

@Chip_Cookie

My problem with using the Single Source of Truth (SST, not be be confused with the other SSTs) is that my main model doesn’t currently have all the close-in details, like waterproofing, joist hangers, etc. To me, it seems cumbersome to include them. For example, why include 32 joist hangers in the main model when you can just say “see callout for hanger detail”. If callout is the right term!

Roll with it. If what you’re doing works for you and your way of looking at the project… all is good.

@Chip_Cookie

Also, I think I will get mighty confused as I add objects of that detail. I can imagine my outline and amongst my tags across scenes with my components and groups melding into a sisyphean nightmare of geometry.

Here’s an example:

Here the meat of the project is in the DECK and STAIRCASE groups. There are sub Groups and Components in each:

One thing I like about using Groups and Components vs. Tags is that Groups and Components can be selected in the Outliner. Versus Tags, which don’t select the Group or Component.

Let’s say I want to work on the STAIRCASE. Select and open to what’s needed:

Here I’m really only using one Tag, “Removal” (That may change - I may tag later). Another option would be to use mostly Tags and Tag Folders:

Also, this is only the Deck Renovation portion of this project. So, it is not entirely a Single Source of Truth for the entire project (there’s a gazebo, shed, patio, walls, fireplace, etc. - those plans would mostly be in plain ol’ 2d… for those you need to use your old rusty tape measure to take measurements off of the crinkled plan you left out in the rain).

@Chip_Cookie

As for the floor joist to foundation connection, I am doing some research and talking to some locals. Once I figure that out I will remodel it.

Yeah - find those people who cooperate. Or are they reciprocal altruists? You’ll have to get to the bottom of the biology drafting up plans

@Chip_Cookie

There are some currently extraneous components and materials. I am keeping them around for possible later use.

That’s what you see in my xtra-Remove Group… a few things I was testing out but probably want to take out.

One of your biggest problems is the slob contractors you’re dealing with and the rubbish they’re leaving laying about:

And this (showing also in Outliner as selected):

Centered?:

[Chip_Cookie]

3D,

Wow, thank you for all that detail. It is going to take me some time to digest it all.

I can’t thank you enough for all the time you have spent coaching me. I very much appreciate it.

I think I have solved the small framing problem. Another one has arisen, but I am sure my crew of competent, but somewhat messy, framers can handle it. But who knows, these digital framers can go off the rails at any time.

Thank you again for all your help.

Regards,

Chip

[Chip_Cookie]

Dear All,

Please find below the latest of my efforts. Here I have redone the flooring system, fixed a small framing mistake, installed the framing for the entrance platform and cleaned up some trash.

Library v3.skp (1.3 MB)

Just in case anyone has forgotten, this is the site I am hoping to use for this building.

Best to all,

Chippy

[3DxJFD]

Put a little square up on the gable end at that would look like it belongs in… Scandia???

[Chip_Cookie]

You betcha

[3DxJFD]

Something about that corner…

Let’s take a look:

Looks like you scaled the one component.

Let’s have some fun with it. Copy, Move+ctrl. Cut, ctrl+x. Select Click out group. Past out of group, ctrl+v.

Select into geometry. Draw line. Push Pull (shows measurement - I didn’t capture enough screen but it’s 7 11/16ths). Pull it up, enter measurement. R-click-drag to select new geometry. Cut, ctrl+x. Select click out of group. Paste, ctrl+v. Draw line to make solid geometry.

Make (Solid) Component, G. Name it. We’re using gold filler instead of concreate for durability ;^). Cut it, ctrl+x. Click back into cinder block component, click, click, click. click. Paste Golden Filler back inside of Cinder Block Component, ctrl+v. Move Tool to place/align. Copy, Move+ctrl. Align Gold Filler.

Create Tag and Tag Golden Fillers.

[3DxJFD]

Generate Report for no particular reason to later calculate gold filler volume.

[Chip_Cookie]

That is very very fancy and a lot better than what I did. Mind if I steal your idea

[Chip_Cookie]

Here is my nearly first attempt at using Layout. This is the new detail for the foundation and floor system.

As per usual all comments and criticisms welcome.

Cheers,

Dr. Cookie

[3DxJFD]

Nice.

Hmm. Level of Detail.

Overview - Broad

Foundation & Vapor barrier - Finer Grain (closer, call out?).

More cowbell.

Rim, Joists, Hangers, Fasterners & (and?) Flooring? Maybe. Finer LOD here too?

Might need flashing if there’s a barrier for water to condense on and run behind/under flooring and rim joist.

Maybe @LinearGraphs will chime in on proper framing… and I think he just did some vapor barriers on the Oklahoma House Build ???

[Chip_Cookie]

Hmm indeed. I will let the engineers tell me what they need in terms of detail. Heck, they will probably change everything…
Library v3.skp (1.3 MB)

Here is my loft floor added to the main plan. I have not put in the ‘hanger’ proxies yet or framed in the clear floor panels.

Cheers,

Chippy Cook

[Chip_Cookie]

Dear All,

This is going to be a building with a vaulted or lofted ceiling. How you any of you suggest I deal with heat build-up in the vaulted space?

Just as a reminder, here is a very early version of the building showing the loft.

Thanks tons for your help.

Cheers,

Cookie

[Chip_Cookie]

Here is the latest update to the Small Library.

Library v3.skp (883.2 KB)

A question about tags and organization: If you have a group or component that contains other groups or components, so you apply the same tag to the internal components as you apply to the overall object. For example, I have wall objects that I have tagged as N wall, etc. Inside of each wall there are stud components, etc. I have left the objects inside the parent object untagged. Is there a reason to not do this?

Sorry if that is confusing. I don’t know how to say it better at this moment.

Regards,

Mr. Chippy

[3DxJFD]

I’ve been wondering about this too.

Here’s an example where I started with Tags and then Switched to mostly Components in Groups.

Started with Context and Dims (Tagged Components I put into a Tag Folder):

Once I had the Beams and Posts Tagged (these aren’t doing much), I switched to almost exclusively using Components and Groups. I like Groups and Components because selecting them in the Outliner selects them in the Model, so they’re ready for editing.

Post and Beam are Under Deck → Framing. If they aren’t needed, they can be turned off there (caveat to using Visibility in Tags/Tag Folder and Groups vs. Components). If you’re using Outliner a lot, it’s easy to remember that you used Visibility settings there. If not, it can be ‘messy’ to have to look in each (Tags Panel and Outliner). Some are off in the image.

The Remove Group was created after Decking, Decking - Landing, and Railings (Those were under Framing). That Remove Group is not tagged. But it could be. Decking and Railings are Tagged Remove and Component Groups in Decking Landing are Tagged Remove. This is a bit wishy-washy. I can turn those of at the Remove Group Level in Outliner or with the Tag.

So, since I can shut off the Visibility of the Group, all is good, right? Maybe. Working in the deeply nested Groups can cause click fever and button press madness.

So let’s say I now have my project As-Built and I know what I’m removing… shut off remove and keep Deck as a ref. Now for Options.

Renovation - Option 1 Group is Tagged, “Renovation Option 1”. You can see here that the Baluster Group is not tagged (its name is a Separate Instance). The layout of the Deck Posts and Railings changed and hence the Balusters changed (from Remove) in Option 1. Some of the Balusters from before work spacing-wise. They were Copied and Pasted. Since I did not Tag them, I don’t have a bunch of incorrect Tags (Remove) in my Renovation - Option 1 Group.

The Renovation - Option 1 Decking Group is Tagged. It’s another Group of Components and is redundant to Renovation Option - 2. But these are different from Remove and this kept the modifications from Remove Decking separate from Option 2 as well. I guess the point is that I didn’t keep dumping Tags into the wrong category. All the Deck Boards are the same in each, untagged. So, the Group was Copied and Renamed, not all of the components inside.

Hmm. So if you do Copies, you need at least two to make a new Group. The tags could come in handy if you have to monkey around before making the new group.

Also, since I was messing around with Trimble Connect(TC) and TC has different Web and Desktop versions, I was paying attention to how things show up there (Groups seem better in Desktop vs. Web).

Generate Report is another thing to keep in mind. You have options for displaying Tags, Definition, Instance, etc…

Anyway, I almost removed all of the tags to try using just Groups and Components. This might be backwards from ‘standard practice’. It’s tempting to create another Tagged version using folders. My Components are named, so I’d probably mostly Tag Groups.

Anyway, the whole organization / categorization thing is interesting - not sure I shed any light :^)

[Chip_Cookie]

3D,

I would agree that I am not sure if you clarified anything… Again, lots in your posts to think about.

I have tried a ‘nested’ tag and group+component thing for the roof framing. I am thinking that this will give maximum flexibility when I move to Layout, but it may also provide maximum confusion as I move forward.

I once did some relational database stuff, and it is a lot like that. It is sort of like trees connected by roots within a forest that belongs in a landscape with some random birds thrown in to confuse the matter.

Anyway, here is the latest. I have added gable ends and a roof. Next will be loft and gable windows. I am still thinking I would like bay windows in the gables, but that may be too much.

Library v3.skp (904.5 KB)

[3DxJFD]

@Chip_Cookie

I would agree that I am not sure if you clarified anything…

My work here is done!

@Chip_Cookie

apply the same tag to the internal components as you apply to the overall object.

I don’t think you’d usually want to do that. The tag on a group like “Walls” might be enough. The studs, plates, etc., in the Group might be Tagged with a specific Tag. Or they might not be tagged since they’re named components and you may only need to turn the Walls on/off. But maybe within “Walls” you have “Corners”. Corners has “Studs”. Do you Group “Corners” but not Tag “Studs” so you can easily display corners? If “Studs” are not Tagged you wouldn’t ‘accidentally’ shut them off inside of “Corners” when you want to only see the Corners.

@Chip_Cookie

For example, I have wall objects that I have tagged as N wall, etc.

Your “N wall” could go into a Tagged ‘Parent’ Group, “Walls”. You can turn off visibility in the Outliner or Tag “N wall”.

Use Tagging and Grouping to get what you want. Sometimes Tags might shut off things in a Group that you want to see. Or, using a lower-level Tag (everything in “N wall”), if N wall was your ‘prototype’ for creating your other walls would have the wrong “N wall” Tag if it was copied to create S wall, E wall, W wall.

@Chip_Cookie

maximum flexibility

@Chip_Cookie

maximum confusion

Maximum Specificity? Maybe you know what you want to show in LayOut so you use specific Tags and create your Scene with those in mind. I was definitely going down a ‘lemme try just groups and components’ path. Is that good for Generate Reports? Is it good for LayOut? Some of this Tagging stuff has to be purpose-driven and one never knows where the birds are going to be.

[Chip_Cookie]

@3DxJFD

Maybe you know what you want to show in LayOut so you use specific Tags and create your Scene with those in mind.

Ah, there lies the rub. I am not sure how I want things in LayOut. Perhaps I should work backwards from LayOut ideas to SketchUp model. However, this presupposes I know what I am doing with the SketchUp model. This is not the case.

An aspect of Sketchup I really like is being able to change the model as I go without having to go back to the start.

As I develop my 3D workflows (as apparently they say in the biz), I am hoping how to organize a model becomes clearer.

I used to do very complicated projects. I am hoping that using Sketchup will help me do some of that again.

I tried the Trimble Viewer thing. Here is one result. For a simple interface, it is pretty neat.

Best to all,

C. C. Cookie, BA, MA, MSP, Phd, AbC

[3DxJFD]

I’ve been doing such a good job at terribly explaining what I’ve been doing lately that I’m just gonna keep going with it.

So with this Deck I’m monkeying with I drew, “Lag Bolt” and “Washer” Components. Then I Grouped them into “Lag Bolts and Washers”. Then I made a, “Post Cap - Pyramidal” component. Those when into a, “Post Caps - Pyramidal” Group. Both of those where then Grouped into, “Hardware”. Basically, I tucked these Components away into Groups as I made them. Hardware is top level. For the options shown before, they are in the correct place for both.

Next I’m making “Sconce - Tubular”. I’ll repeat it, Group them, and Sub-categorize into “Hardware”.

I don’t know, but for some people it may make more sense to keep categorizing by Tag and into Tag Folders. Something like this:

It’s cool that you tried the Visualizer (Viewer is something else). I was influenced to try using mostly Groups vs. Tags because of how these show up in Trimble Connect (Desktop).

In TC Desktop, there is a Models Selection Panel and an Objects Panel. Model selection allowed me select, yep, the model’s Groups and Components.

In the TC Web version, you can select “Layers”… those are your Tags.

So there’s another kawinckydink for you.

JFD, GED, Holder of SketchUp Campus Certificates of Achievement ;^)

[Chip_Cookie]

3D,

@3DxJFD

I’ve been doing such a good job at terribly explaining what I’ve been doing lately that I’m just gonna keep going with it.

And I will keep explaining how I do things until folks realize I am trying to open an Amazon package and just making things complicated.

@3DxJFD

So with this Deck I’m monkeying with I drew, “Lag Bolt” and “Washer” Components. Then I Grouped them into “Lag Bolts and Washers”. Then I made a, “Post Cap - Pyramidal” component. Those when into a, “Post Caps - Pyramidal” Group. Both of those where then Grouped into, “Hardware”. Basically, I tucked these Components away into Groups as I made them. Hardware is top level.

All hardware bits are then components in a group, but the hardware itself is either a group of components or components?

How do you keep track of how ‘deep’ your components or groups are nested within the groups. I guess I would try to organize them based on both type (component) and position (wall, post, piston, kangaroo).

All said, very interesting and more to chew on.

Sorry the late reply. Ill horses got in the way of fun.

Cheers,

Cooker of Chips