?
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you stack the Donley section viewport with one or more linework / raster viewports…
1 Like
That’s why it is stacked with other viewports. The level of detail you propose would only apply to wall sections or details as I hope you are not trying to show that level of detail in building sections. Nobody can read them at plan scale in the field.
Also if your base model is modeled to that level of detail, it will drastically slow down any LO files generated from such a complex model.
I don’t use wall sections, as they are a duplicate of details. I use 3D details that are purely raster, generated from separate 3D models. I have a huge library.
I’ll have to say, I see the term “workaround” used whenever people appear frustrated with LO. I think what I am seeing is a commonality that people are used to AutoCAD or similar drafting program and want SU and LO to do the same.
This is truly unfortunate. LO and SU are nothing like ACAD, and they shouldn’t be. They behave differently and offer so much more in terms of deliverables. Those I see struggling with performance issues, appear to be forcing a process that emulates their old CAD practices. If you are one of those folks you will constantly be stuck looking for workarounds!
2 Likes
I think “workaround” has become a replacement for “I want to do it another way, like I learned in another software, but will do this way, instead”
Mindset is everything… If you an accept that the software you are using is a different software than some other solution, and that things will be different, you may end up succeeding and making something better than what you did in the other software… I mean… if you are changing, then the software that you are leaving is not ideal, for one reason or another, right?
1 Like
Like I said in my first SU video 10 years ago…”thank god it’s not like ACAD”.
3 Likes
Ha! I totally agree! I remember finding SU after years of detailing in AutoCad… what a relief!
Which is why I crack up when I see people saying (and I paraphrase), “Moving to SketchUp from AutoCad, because I hate AutoCad… now how do I make SketchUp more like AutoCad?”
6 Likes
With all due respect, some of us are not asking for SU/LO to necessarily be like ACAD, but there are established industry standards in the AEC world that require a certain type of deliverables in order to obtain building permits, comprehensive cost analysis, and to relay the information to build. The process to arrive at these deliverables efficiently with LO is what some of us are taking issue with.
Many moons ago I attempted to employ Nick’s method of 3D detailing (which I love and absolutely makes more sense for the best way to relay information), but was quickly shut down by the fact that our local jurisdictions would not except color drawings with 3D details for permit approval. Further attempts proved an industry of consultants, engineers, builders, etc. unwilling to spend the effort to understand or employ these types of deliverables. From my research over the past 10 years there is a minority of AEC folks out there using only SU/LO for drawings and only of a handful of those using or working from “Sonder” type deliverables.
Again, I envy Nick’s wonderful drawings and agree that this should be the way, but the vast majority of the industry ain’t coming along for the ride. In the meantime, those of us that are using only SU/LO for our process would like to see solid improvements in LO for simple tasks to make our process more efficient. We don’t want it to be like AutoCAD, we want it to be better than AutoCAD for producing deliverables.
3 Likes
Just as an aside, do you still have to deliver drawings as paper prints? In our parts the permit process is totally paperless. Contractors have the drawings needed on site printed from delivered PDF files.
98% of the time I am supplying only pdfs these days, and as you said, contractors are printing their own paper prints for on site as needed.
Strangely, the building department is still having problems excepting color drawings, even as pdf, although I am sensing a change in the tide with that…and testing them often.
I’m being picky, but, from my experience in the UK, 3D details are not so much for getting the permissions, but would be for the contractor.
I don’t use 3D details myself - I use 2D details. And even those 2D details are more for the contractor.
And Nick’s method does not necessarily require the use of colour - I have taken much from Nick’s book and my use of colour is very limited.
Of course I don’t know the building permission/permit process in the US…
Well, that’s all over the spectrum depending on where you are, but a local building official here recently said that COVID accelerated the adoption of paperless drawing submission, and now they love it.
The biggest problem I find with color is cost of output. After my last large format inkjet printer died, I never got around to replacing it, so anything larger than 13"x19" I have to send out to print. A D-sized sheet in full color is something like 6 times the cost of B&W, even just the same raster image in grey scale. I asked @Sonder at 2018 3DBC about what they handed out to contractors, and I think he said they handed over only one color copy, and any more were B&W. I can understand handing over just PDF’s and saying “If you want color, you pay for it.” It used to be common to hand out bid sets and charge the client, but if each page is $6 or more, and each set is dozens of pages, and you hand out dozens of sets, it quickly turns into thousand of dollars in printing costs. Of course, open a PDF on your iPad, and that’s free.
You all need to push your building departments harder. I’ve done it successfully now with 7 different jurisdictions from small Crested Butte to larger Washoe, Placer and El Dorado. There is no excuse to not accepting color and I’ll bet everyone of their planning departments require it.
I don’t provide prints at all anymore except to one jurisdiction that still requires it. Everyone else has transitioned to digital in the past 3 years.
Back in the 50s to 70s 3D details were common place. People got lazy.
As for contractors I don’t know of a single one that doesn’t appreciate 3D details. I work with many and all have commented on how it is so easy to understand.
It’s sad to see some contractors and building departments are stuck in the dark ages. Get active with your local AIA for change and advancement in our industry. Acad is the industry standard because our industry lets it.
2 Likes
sorry…long rambling post ahead…
Mindset is everything… If you an accept that the software you are using is a different software than some other solution,
I guess we ask a lot (?), but we want to create lovely a 3d presentation and navigate around in first-person, designing in a life-like virtual environment…so sketchup seems like exactly the right tool for that.
But…
Pro users need to create documents to include things like detailed contours, electrical plans, civil design details or BIM elements,…then output vector line drawings using the color/symbology required by our local building/planning authority. We don’t have a lot of choice of that stuff…it’s what the industry demands. And we have to be efficient because time = $$$.
Obviously SketchUp caters to different industries, project scales, regions, demand different outputs or workflows and I don’ know ho wmuch in common different users have…but there seems to be topic after topic saying similar things.
We could take the approach that “sketchup is just a sketchy concept design tool” and then go away and use Revit or Vectorworks or Civil3d for all that “technical stuff”. But we’d rather SketchUp add some features/capabilities so we don’t have to use those other tools (because, once this happens, we find more and more of the design is prepared in those tools and sketchup becomes a “support software.” Most long-term users of SketchUp that I’ve met want to bring more people/teams/industries into our engaging 3d world to collaborate, not the other way around.
When a “workaround” becomes so commonplace that people invent a name for it…doesn’t that tell you that the userbase are expecting to do something that the software can’t do natively & intuitively?
Example: I want to add detailed interior objects and trees to my model (because it’s fun and looks cool and gets people excited about my design)…but… I also need to create simple 2d Plans, without bringing LayOut to a crawl. The “workaround” is to save a copy of the file, delete tags containing 3d objects, then export that “lite” model to LayOut…and repeat each time the design is tweaked). Is that workflow by design? Becuase it’s very inconvenient and not obvious. In my mind, the simpler solution would be for SketchUp to allow us to deselect which tags/objects are exported to Layout (or change them to a 2d proxy). This is an example of what we put up with for Years when it feels like a change in setting would be a relatlively simple thing. An even better solution would be a new Hybrid mode, where certain tags are rendered in raster (and non-snappable), and others in Vector.
I don’t think it’s good for users to learn a dozen “workarounds” for making LayOut work the way we expect it to work (we use raster mode, low quality, low poly count model, small model size, transparency off, use multiple layout files, export 1 page at a time, turn off auto-render, buy new hardware, adopt rigid and complex tag/scene/styles templates…read books…).
Too many users share the similar frustrations to describe this as needing a “mindset” change.
8 Likes
This is a good point. Doesn’t apply to all structural details and other required drawings, but generally architectural details tend to cover things that, though important, are not necessary in a permit set to satisfactorily show code compliance or scope of work.
Crews on some of our jobs use the plans on iPads.
The pandemic has sped the transition to electronic submittals in our jurisdiction here locally. On the way to the building department the other day I was following a pick up truck full of boxes of all the same big UHD Monitor and I was thinking–this guy must have a little AV store or something, but he ended up unloading them at City Hall. The building department was closed since they are no longer open every day for face-to-face interactions.
Actually what you just posted is another example of trying to make it like ACAD.
When I first transitioned to 100% layout I had zero resources to follow. I had to have the mindset of a different approach. I had to completely leave my 24 years of using ACAD in a new environment. I’m not saying I have the perfect end result, but I do not face these constant issues I see posted here.
My documents all emulate what you would expect from a set of typical CD’s, except they are color, easily coordinated and have far more detail than my competition. Both SU and LO perform very well in my experience. I can produce a project in 1/3 the time it would take in ACAD…probably faster in the CD phase alone. I know this comes across as bragging, but I could not achieve those results, with anywhere near the level of deliverables, without both SU and LO.
I think the approach you take or mindset is absolutely crucial to your success. If it were truly the fault of the software not meeting ones needs in our professional industry, then I’m a genius, which those that really know me, is absolutely untrue!
2 Likes
Only hand over PDFs to my clients… if they want hardcopies they print what they need…
PS and this is a developing Asian country…
Sorry I dont quite follow…what part of what I wrote seems like an AutoCAD sort of approach?
Unfortunatley some your posts are coming across sounding a bit like “I have this perfect workflow, and if you’re not using it then you’re not using SketchUp properly.”
I agree, your workflow is a great one and perfectly suits your context. I also have 18+ years of SketchUp pro use, and I employ elements of your template and tag structure myself when the situation permits, so I’m definitely not trying to take anything away from what you’ve developed. … And its awesome that you’re sharing insights and have written a book to help others, so I’m not knocking your intentions.
I totally agree about AutoCAD. Thankfully I never needed to learn it properly (I came from 3DS Max). SketchUp and LayOut are definitely faster and better than AutoCAD for residential architecture design (albiet Autocad is largely obsolete piece of 2D drafting software that few architecture/design firms outside of North America still use as a primary tool…so not sure if it’s a useful frame of reference).
I’m more interested in how SketchUp Pro fits in among its true competitors such as Infraworks, ArchiCad, Vectorworks, Rhino, Formit, Revit, Blender, ArcGIS Urban, etc.
I guess I represent a different sphere of users… I work in an environment where we must acknowledge or adhere to model management and drafting protocols, and heavy, heavy datasets exhanged with numerous other professional disciplines. BTW I work on highways, hospitals, retirement communities, mainstreets, national parks, art galleries…as well as houses.
I’m noticing year on year that the size and complexity of data coming and going through SketchUp continues to grow. Just take 3d renders as an example…When I started with SketchUp it was impressive to present any form of digital 3d image, even a face-me 2.5d component. Now the expectation is that we need a raytracer and fully-animated videos. Oh, and we also need that same scene to be exported instantly in 2d with industry-compliant symbology and line weights…and a report for our QS to analyse.
Generally, “workarounds” will be necessary and acceptable in a space where there is emerging technology or innovative methods…until such time as a proper workflow can be established and embedded. Example: Years after first asking for more complex line styles, I really don’t believe we should have to draw insulation by manually placing PNGs around a wall in static 2d space.
You can’t say “hey I’ll just invent my own symbol, and I’ll make it Lime Green”…not in my city, at least.
Some of SketchUp & LayOut’s issues and workarounds have now persisted for years, without very good reason. None of us want this platform to become the next AutoCAD - a popular but slightly archaic tool used by folk who havent yet adopted “current tech.” It needs to keep evolving. I have 20 years left in my career so not sure if SketchUp will be the last design tool I ever use, but I’d like to get at least a few more years out of my signficant personal investment…
Anyway… I’m not claiming to be a guru, or to represent a vast user base… Arguably I should be using all those other software types I listed above, depending on the project type/scale/workflow. I just dont have the time or money to invest in them to become really good.
Cheers.
5 Likes
It would indeed be fantastic if we could draw a line and have Layout instantly convert it to insulation batting.
But, and do let me know if this person could do it quicker and easier, this seems rather clunky to me…?
Especially when he has to regenerate it in paperspace.
In the time it took him (in this video tutorial) to generate the insulation batt, I could very easily have placed my Layout scaled pre-drawn insulation batt.
(haven’t used AutoCAD since 2007)
I have done that as a Dynamic Component, no images involved.
In AutoCad I originally wrote a Lisp program that placed repeating components, later I also made Dynamic blocks for the purpose.
1 Like
It’s just a line type.
I just made this pretty useless video 
You can adjust scale, offset, thickness, etc. So typically you select the edge of the wall, make a copy and then apply the Insulation line style.
Of course Revit, Archicad, Revit MEP have way more control over appearance, and Insulation is a BIM element contained within a wall element, with 3d display options, assignable thermal properties etc etc…but I’m not suggesting SketchUp needs that.
I used it as a quick example…could have picked many. (contour line or boundary line labels comes to mind).
And I’m sure there are ways to draft insulation in SketchUp using Profile Builder or other extensions…but that’s probably like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
I guess my point is that Insulation (“batting”) has been a standard architectural & construction symbol now for 40ish years…and all common architectural software can do it easily and natively.
Simple dashed lines didnt even appear within SketchUp+LO until a few years ago (until then we had to manually place small edges with gaps in them - or export our plans to AutoCAD/Illustrator to manipulate edge styles)… and this suggests to me that SketchUp+LO was never probably intended to do this sort of 2 drafting in the first place. We are “asking” sketchup to draft 2d floorplans when its possibly not part of the ‘scope’ of the product.
But on the other hand…how hard is it to put some custom line types into LayOut? even if they are Raster.
2 Likes