Thanks for your suggestion. For me that’s no real solution as that would break the link between model and 2d output/drafting.
I do things in LO and SU right now and it suits me. Just wanted to improve in that workflow and avoid LO if possible.
The part-way execution of that is to do what ever drawing, even 2D drawing, in SketchUp before sending it to Layout. For example, I’d rather draw door swings in SU and put them on a Layer/Tag that only shows up in plan view than draw them in Layout. If I can keep my work in LO to just placing a viewport and adding notes and dimensions, it’s tolerable.
2 Likes
I strongly agree with your assessment / comments about Trimble and their ‘development’ of SU/LO over the years - as like you, I’ve held steady creating a stable working workflow with SU Pro 2021 and have ended my autorenewal for the subscription this year (subscribed since 2018).
1 Like
My PrettyPrint extension can give you better PDF output. It allows you to control line width, color, and shape (round or square ends and joins) based on the line’s color in SketchUp.
I developed this to output plumbing plans for large projects (e.g. a 540 unit apartment tower) that Layout just cannot handle. Follow the link on PrettyPrint’s EW page to my Wix site for more information.
Same here
Can you choose different line widths for every tag? Or the line width is the same for the entire model?
Just for clarity - Layout allows line widths to be set by Tag.
I know, but I was asking if the plugin pretty print can do that.
I thought you would - that’s why I wrote “just for clarity” 
1 Like
Line parameters are set by color, not tag. I use tags to control visibility of objects.
Dave
This reminds me of the days when using AutoCad, (1988 R9) we had to use scaled sheets drawn in model space. I had various scaled sheets for plans vs details. All objects were drawn at 1:1. Some firms would keep the sheets the same scale, and would change the objects scale. I would get projects sent to me that were totally confusing. Then AutoCad invented “viewports”, total game changer.
I see several people trying to solve the 3D model to 2D doc puzzle. My question is why?
The SketchUp base camps are full of firms that focus more on using 3D in their condocs. Obviously some things like plans, some elevations and such are better in 2D, but some elevation, sections, and certainly details can be better in 3D.
When I left AutoCad for SketchUp, the ideal wasn’t to drag the 2D mindset into a 3D workflow. The goal was to REPLACE a 2D only workflow with a 3D workflow, only using 2D when it communicated the intent and information better or easier than 3D could.
Condoc tools may be an easy way to transition a project from SketchUp to LayOut, but it’s just as easy to build and coordinate both SketchUp and LayOut templates to work in tandom using the native tools in both software’s. My templates insert, fill out, text, and update automatically. A little time and research will teach these skills.
I agree that the layout API as promised at the 2016 basecamp, but later withdrawn was hard felt by the community. Maybe Trimble will remember why so many of us left Autocad, and correct course.
1 Like
Thank you everyone for this discussion and please know we hear you and are looking at ways to improve your overall experience within SU and LO.
You all have given us insight to better processes and things to think about moving forward.
Trent
4 Likes
Thank you Trent,
Community discussed and requested LayOut features for years. Open API for LayOut and let community use it publicy, that can change the game.
1 Like
Many have asked for drawing tools in Layout to be the same as in Sketchup, with inferencing also working the exact same way, so it works for more people with no unnecessary learning. I have totally given up on drawing 2D building detailing in Layout, but it’s ok. I can do it in sketchup.
I feel Layout 23 is way better than 22 though, for just the better control over viewports, where panning is the initial tool clicking into a plan view viewport.
An option to turn off snapping for viewports where you dont need it/want it would be good for performance. It would make stacked viewports with the top one containing the geometry you actually wanted to snap to a breeze to work with.
It would be cool if development resources were not wasted, on things like the Ai- driven selection modes, but rather put to use on things we actually need: Consistent and thought through workflows for ifc/dwg import/export, better Layout tools and performance.
I hear OpenGL is being scrapped, that must be lots of work, and I look forward to that bringing performance gains also in Layout?
When I left AutoCad for SketchUp, the ideal wasn’t to drag the 2D mindset into a 3D workflow. The goal was to REPLACE a 2D only workflow with a 3D workflow
This is a great thought. It’s been hoped for over 20 years now that 2d becomes a supporting format to 3d, but often it’s still the other way around.
We now firmly model in 3d space, but the primary plans we deliver as professionals are still the 2d plans/elevations/sections.
The idea of using a IFC or BIM exchange format for digital 3d models is improving but has been painfully slow to progress into daily workflows in most industries.
The thing I try to aim for outputs for are Isometric views and, if possible, Cutaway views.
Unfortunately it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to produce cutaway technical drawings. We’re talking multiple section planes, adjustments to section fills and cut lines, manual hatches, resolving conflicts between touching faces, hybrid rendering style, assigning dimensions…
What should be a really great and simple tool for SU+LO output is actually technically challenging to accomplish.
EG This is just a rough draft I have open on my screen at the moment…the process for turning it into a dimensioned technical drawing is going to be a bit time consuming for me.
1 Like
Let’s take a look with Curic Sing-line Text in beta stage, very promissing for this idea.
The beta version can download “free” here, require license of Curic Studio 1.1:
Curic Single-Line Text (Beta) (gumroad.com)
OK there might be merit in this idea…
Another type of Scene is created. We’ll call it “Sheets”
- Sheets are essentially LayOut Viewports, but within SketchUp.
- Sheets are where annotations are placed and 2d outputs defined.
- The tools used for annotation would be very similar to the tools within LayOut (dimension, leader text,
- text box, etc), but all available within sketchup.
- A 2d drafting mode is also available when working in a Sheet view; all dimensions, and tools like Line and Circle snap to and associate with an invisible 2d Plane created by the camera.
- Objects added to a Sheet will only be visible within that Sheet (that means Title blocks need to drawn seperately).
- Export options for Sheets would include a few new functions, eg “Flatten” as well as some scaling to create paper-sized PDF outputs.
So this is “LayOut-Lite” within SketchUp.
I’m not sure if it’s a huge advantage over Layout, but it does solve a lot of issues, eg performance and workflow efficiency, as well as allowing extensions.
The question is - can “sheets” be created as an extension?
1 Like
Because, unfortunately, we can’t force the industry to change. 2d documentation is still essential for construction for a lot of reasons that I will not address here.
Because, as @Odd_Haakon_Byberg I believe, doing everything we can in SketchUp is better, faster, more intuitive and more productive. Layout is just there for minor things as having a steady view of the model, a drawing block, labels and dimensions and present everything as 2d or printing.
If Layout had, at least, SketchUp tools, we could work better. Not even close.
And it will keep evolving slow as an IFC model or a BIM workflow like you see in Trimble connect isn’t capable of replacing everything 2d offers.
It can enhance and simplify what we present in 2d, not replace it fully.
Or some way to fully replace what you do in Layout so you don’t need to develop Layout anymore. If Layout is lagging behind for years, let it fall and focus exclusively in SketchUp. Creating the few needed tools required and allowing developers to help along the way, would boost development of a better 2d and drafting environment.
It would even probably get SketchUp closer to the full environment needed to get a 2D and 3D hybrid some of you advocate (but never happens).
Hi @trent and thanks for chimming in.
What this idea would allow is that you focus your development in a mature software (SketchUp) by providing the few features it would need for the workflow to fully work, while ditching away software that seems to never get to be mature enough to be reliable for every user (Layout).
I like Layout’s idea of a SketchUp paper space. But it looks like a low level illustration software that can create very strong output with a lot of work, and that we only use because we have no real alternative.
The only alternative I can see happening in the future is SketchUp itself.
I hope you really consider one of two:l radical options:
- radically revamp LO to make it work seamlessly with SketchUp by investing all you need in it.
- or allow SketchUp to go fully independent and stop wasting development resources in LO.
Why do some of us have no issues using Layout to produce detailed construction documents and others seem to have a hard time…?
Layout is not “broken” from my point of view.