i don’t see the problem. This is an example with WildTools in PowerCADD. I thought all CAD would be like this by now.
That curved insulation is cool, but really? I think that’s possible with the linear patterning tool in WildTools. Point-- that other CAD programs have some features lacking in SketchUp/LayOut-- is it significant to the discussion?
I knew someone would mention this…lol
DCs give you vector linework and easier stretching/scaling, right? …but don’t you still manually place and adjust each segment? (I assume it works like the PowerCADD example…which appears to be a good method for what it does). It seems like another good workaround… not so efficient perhaps for applying that style to a whole plan set, but great for 2d cross sections of standard details and such.
And I didnt mean to sidetrack the thread into Insulation styles .sorry!
So it’s probably a good thing that I didn’t mention Adobe Illustrator’s vector brushes as an example 
You know, when I started at Trimble as a Sales Engineer, the number one question we would get from potential users was, “Why should we use SketchUp instead of Revit?” They were often taken aback when my reply was, “Well… you shouldn’t! You should use is WITH Revit.”
I know everyone is still holding out hope that there will be an end all, be all perfect platform that everyone will use and we can all be so happy all of the time, but the fact is, we all need differ t things out of our softwares. @sonder has created an amazing workflow and business around his use of exclusively SU and LO and that is awesome! Many users in the AEC industry, however, MUST work with SU AND (fill in CAD name here).
So when you ask how SketchUp stacks up against other software, the answer is a very intentional, “it is different!” SketchUp is intentionally different from other cad. It is made to work differently and create something different. Many people use that and push what they can generate to supplement what they get from their other packages.
In the end, SketchUp is SketchUp… and a lot of people like it that way!
Nah, I’d want to mark a 3D object in my model to be insulation, and then have the fill add automatically when a section is made through it. No manual work should be needed if you move a section.
I think Skalp does this.
The sketchup/ Layout combo has some impressive strengths compared to other software. I understand the guys that have found their working methods and want to defend Layout against the usual onslaught of criticism.
But is that really helpful? To always say the critics are wrong? I’m sure the Layout team take the more balanced approach, that some things are good and some things could definitively be better.
How else would they prepare for the next version ? 
Just a small example: Dimensioning the 350 in my 15 year old autocad licence would require a temporary shift of UCS, or the use of a perpendicular snap, so a small hazzle. There’s no axis tool in layout, and no gesture of alignment to surrounding linework for dimensions, so I would have to draw a perpendicular helpline in the scene, update the scene, and dimension that help line, or just wing it from some not exact point on the line, or start a scaled drawing on top of the geometry, make some offset lines and dimension those. These are not workarounds?
The dimensioning tool really shows up some “cool” artistic tricks with 3D, rotation and all, but some of us just want the basics to work a little better. And I’m not gonna use Revit also there’s limits to how many tools I want to learn.
Sam, sorry for singling you out, but you are pushing for an “ACAD” result with the previous post and this one I am responding to now. When I refer to ACAD, I am lumping in all the programs that, in the end, emulate the look of the typical ACAD drawing that we have seen for years now. People are asking for yet another software, to duplicate that type of drawing that as you say “has been around for 40 years”. I am challenging that.
I don’t use material symbols in my drawings. The only lingering symbol I have in any of my drawings is the “X” at studs and framing which I need to remove from my details as they are unnecessary. I don’t show any symbols in my building sections since they are at a scale of 1/4". The purpose of the building section is to show heights and key in assemblies and details. I don’t prepare wall sections since the 3d details make them obsolete.
I understand fully that my process is not the end all be all process. In fact, I believe I have stated that many times. I come across that way as I keep repeating myself on the very issues we are discussing here. That is, to not try to make SU and LO perform like a standardized CAD based drafting program. Utilize LO for what it is meant to be - a way to present your 3d model. My process does that successfully as I am sure their are others out there as well. I share the process because I do want to see change and not go back to these symbol heavy, dry B&W documents. We have the ability to get past that now for years.
As for project types, I don’t feel any limitations with SU & LO for commercial and public works projects at all. Those project types still contain the same basic scope you will produce for a custom residential project with custom residential often requiring far more work in presentation. I worked for over a decade on nothing but California Public Schools early in my career so I know what went into those drawing sets. Yes today, BIM has taken over, but the output still looks the same as it did back then. With SU and LO I have done several commercial office buildings and a fire station. So I wouldn’t categorize those drawing sets as being all that different in scope.
Before all of the use of symbols came about, many of the great architecture firms created 3d hand drafted details rather than use symbols that bear no resemblance to their real life counterpart (the insulation baffle being an excellent example). When I was in college, I had a wonderful professor that spoke of the lost art of the construction document. The advent of symbol use came about due to the inability of drafts people to create such work in a timely manner. Two dimensional was simpler than 3D. However, nothing can beat the immediate relaying of information that a true 3d detail provides, especially one that shows the elements in a more realistic view. Ramsey Sleeper Graphic Standards (the Book) is an excellent example, especially earlier versions that show this transition. The most telling details contained in that book (that every architect, engineer, designer or draftsman should own) are the ones portrayed in a 3 dimensional aspect. So, when I see posts like this and the several that follow asking for LO to become an output that matches ACAD (like all the others you listed do), it frustrates me to no end. It’s like we are giving up, when we should be pushing for a change.
Nowhere in the IBC or IRC does it allow any jurisdiction to dictate which software you can use or any sort of industry symbol standard. It dictates that we comply and portray our work in compliance with the code and meet the criteria of section 107. I truly believe that someday we will not be using physical drawings at all. We will never get there if we keep trying to hold to a standard that has been around for far longer than the 40 years you’ve stated unfortunately.
Well, I didn’t made this up, it’s from the SketchUp site:
instead of just the ‘visible’ texture, add real material to solids with accompanying section cuts. Everybody knows that my spruce molding would be painted. There is a need for usibility, we need a material passport for the designs.
Who uses StyleBuilder, anyway? There hasn’t been any updates for the past 10 or 12 years. Importing .Pat linestyles and adjusting them would fit perfectly for this (#interoperability)
Ever wanted to do a material report?
The area is not even an attribute in Generate report.
Combining attributes inside LayOut can only be done manually
…
(#Objects) If we could simply add another level of organisation and customise it (let’s say These objects are ‘Rooms’ and have these advanced attributes; Area, number, function
Mind you, I work for the distributor in the Benelux, been working with SketchUp from version 4~5 as a constructor in the AEC industry. This comment is personal, but I wish that SketchUp would get rid of all these quircks and bugs before adding any new features.
A lighting company in our country had a slogan:
‘let’s get things better…’
I used to comment:
‘Let’s get it to work, first!’
Thanks! Beat me to it!
…or the one in PowerCADD + Wild Tools
Exactly!
You would probably need the Fat Faces feature to accomplish that (I keep nagging about it).
Yes, but .pat is the hatch pattern definition file. Line style files end with .lin. SketchUp would benefit from both.
I think we have different ideas about purpose, but not totally in opposition.
Because its (hopefully) of interest to others, and shows my industry’s working style, I have this case study example to share. It’s a large project though I’m involved only as a technical/design reviewer in this one, not author/modeller). It happens to be a RVT model, but it’s a handy example (and something in the public realm so can be shared).
Keen to hear your thoughts/experiences.
Short Video:
(this is all one 3d RVT model, just rendered in Lumion with some people, cars and plants added)
2d elevation from Revit:
And some crops of 1:100 technical drawings (not super detailed) from the same model:
With the project we have three main elements:
1. the 3d model.
This is the primary means of design and communication throughout the project are the renders/3d images (walkthrough). These are for design pros, public stakeholders, elected officials, heritage building specialists, the future tenants (shopkeepers) and planning authorities.
The 3d model is supported by little 3d technical drawings (cutaways, cross sections, etc). …which are great to illustrate key points in the model, if you need a static and dimensioned output.
EG;
the bits of digital data interchanged with other disciplines.
The numerous specialists trading information on the project use an agreed system for sharing data- eg file formats, layer name conventions, model base point location, hatch styles, etc. We can’t import insert one person’s SKP file and find that they’ve used the same tag names that I have used for something else, or that they’ve exploded all their groups into loose geometry (it happens!). There are 100s of exchanges of info betwen specialists so it pays to figure out a smooth process that a range of software can align with.
Lastly (and leastly) - the 2d tech drawings.
This output automated as much as possible, for efficiency and consistency, to produce the required formats for contractor drawings, leasing plans, quantity surveys, fire evacuation plans, and other legal documents.
These are boring-looking and contain symbols and hatch patterns etc, but they fit the accepted (and required) visual language of the industry (soft insulation = wavy line). Technical people can read them at a glance and know exactly what’s going on. Again though, most of the core technical people work in digital space, so they dont need PDFs, but they are still a “must have”.
Hard copies are a thing of the past in my country. A few people insist on them, but most went paperless some years ago.
We could feed SKP geometry into Revit (or other CAD software) to do the 2d Production…that’s what @TheOnlyAaron is maybe getting at? Use both? SKP doesnt have a good workflow for that, however. We do use renderers for 3d output from SketchUp, but the workflow//interop for that process is great.
@RTCool everything you post about PowerCADD looks awesome and it would really tempt me as a 2d output for SketchUp. But you said it’s becoming end of life soon?
In our parts, for all projects larger than a single family house, using a BIM application is in practice mandatory, and the role of modelling applications like SketchUp or Rhino is at best peripheral. They just cannot match the integrated workflows BIM apps offer. You may create a preliminary design with SketchUp but the first questions the client asks are "How many square meters? What does it cost? What if you leave that wing out?
(Not to talk of the numerous difficulties you run into when trying to use SketchUp models inside either Revit or Archicad)
Autocad still dominates all developing countries, rarely licensed!
Try Affinity Designer
no no no , please no…I had 20 years of Autocad with metric and imperial .pat and .lin files scattered over both internal and consultant dwgs… I had to overwrite the imperial files as metric to stop imperial corrupting our metric files…
Loved the animation! Looks like an amazing project. Those 2D drawings though…really don’t reflect the level of design & capability reflected in that animation. That’s the part of CAD standards I think need a major overhaul.
It’s a MacOS program only (no Windows version) and it’s not compatible with MacOS versions above 10.14 (Mojave), but still works on legacy hardware/OS’s. Bill Stanley who originally created it passed away a few years ago, and his son, who’s carried on with it since, has announced he can’t develop it himself anymore. The developers of Form•Z, just announced they will acquire it and develop it, so it may see new life. No details when or what will look like.
A lot of what makes PC great is a large set of plugins called Wild Tools by Alfred Scott. He has admitted to getting a lot of the ideas for it from Microstation, so it’s not like no one can do these things too. My problem with Layout is I’ve experienced better with PC, so it makes a good source of feature requests.
A lot of companies develop solar-specific CAD-like software, but (like Sketchup) none of them do 100% of what I need at work. It’s definitely an uphill battle to justify the cost of multiple platforms, especially to people unfamiliar with CAD software.
One of the biggest quality-of-life updates in 2021 was the ability to group Tags into folders- that makes a world of difference when importing models from other software!
AK_SAM,
thanks for that - particularly since as a contractor using Revit_Lumion and SketchUp Pro, it is great to see the combined use in a collected way like this - thanks for sharing.
It’s also happy days to learn the Invercargill , is getting something decent in the way of new retail and public space.
There was a Danish Architect, that had sorted a private custom plug-in for SU to do the “section inside a section” process made simple and he had done a great job 3 years ago and a bit, of doing a complete set of 2D drawings composed of fundamentally 3D sectional details, for a school there illustrating the value in leveraging a 3D model that does not have parametrics, but still generating effective communication.
good job
Amen!
