I could move and scale object with precision value, same way in SketchUp, just move or scale follow direction you want then type “value + unit”.
When operate a move action in LayOut, beside Align Tools are the most I love, other tools help me save a lot of time when compare with Autocad (I used Autocad 20 years), examples follow:
Move Object
With Autocad
Select object
Enter command “M” for Move
Pick source point
Pick destination point
Press Esc to finish moving.
With LayOut
Select object
Pan to source point
Drag to destination point
Press Esc to finish moving
In some cases you do not need to make “step 2” because autosnap.
In many cases when you move follow a direction then apply a value, you could apply another value right after, as much as you want.
OK, now with Rotate action
With Autocad
Select object
Enter command “RO” for Rotate
Pick source point
Enter value of angle
Press Esc to finish Rotate.
With LayOut
Select object
Pan to source point
Drag handle to desire direction
Enter value of angle
Press Esc to finish Rotate
In many cases, you do not need to make “step 2” when rotate around object 's pivot like rotate a chair.
Flip Object
With AutoCad
Select object
Enter command “MI” for Mirror
Pick 1st point
Pick 2nd point of mirror plane
Type Y/N to confirmed copy or not
Press Esc to finish flip
With LayOut
Select object
Enter command for flip horizontal/vertical
Press Esc to finish flip
I know LayOut still need to be better, but let see to the bright sight of it.
I agree with everything stated here, but my biggest “pet peeve” is the unnecessary and frustrating opaque padding around dimension text. It is very frustrating to deal with. At least make the opaqueness an option - please.
I guess the Move Tool is part of the “Widget” (if i even have that name correct)
But hey, there is no actual “feature request” function anyway! It’s just a title of a category in this user forum…it doesn’t actually get sent to Trimble as part of any sort of formalised Feature Request.
Therefore, any FR needs to be summarised really well in the first post (and edit/update that post as the solution develops). All the topic/discussion thread beyond the first post is purely “context” and opinion.
One would hope that the more views & support that a topic gets = more attention by Trimble staff.
Maybe we should generate a more formal template for FRs?
eg:
Title of Feature Request:
Is this a new function, or a change to existing function?
What doesn't work well now/what is missing:
What needs to be changed:
Example of desired workflow (include images/animation):
Use Case examples (eg what industries/users/project types)
Would this affect any other native tools/functions?
Is there already an extension to do this (or could there be)?
And then under each one, start a poll so people can vote.
Nice idea AK_SAM,
Since this is about LayOut, I’m a little puzzled over your reference to “an extension” … as far as I know, LayOut can’t use extensions, right?
Windows only, though.
On topic, I am not against the gizmo, but it could have a better representation (eg. red and green axe, for instance)
It could be seen as an ‘Origin’ of a Group. But it’s position get’s recalculated depending on what’s in the selection. If it could be memorized by group, things get a lot easier, especially when dragging elements out of Scrapbooks.
An inspector panel that indicates what element is selected also helps in getting to know the quircks of the software.
Btw, we are still dealing with a ‘Presentation tool’ that was developed by Atlast Software a year before Google took over. LayOut behaves more like Google Presentations than a ‘condoc creator’, imo.
That’s because Sketchup, at the time, wasn’t more than a presentation tool, in what regards architecture. Nobody was using it for condoc. It was Layout 2D exporting control capabilities that opened the door for condoc tools. It wasn’t meant to, I’m sure, but Layout killed itself by missing the point from the start. Sketchup could be much more, but Sketchup wasn’t aware of that. Yet Sketchup evolved to fulfil that and Layout was stuck with it’s bad start.
The questions are:
Do you think Layout’s render engine, UI and it’s backstage are fit for what we need from it in the future?
Can it evolve as Sketchup did and become performant and easy to use?
Or should it be rebooted and developed from scratch?
I think there’s so much about it that is so fundamentally wrong, and that this poses such a development bottleneck, that the team is loosing more time finetuning it for mediocre improvements than it would take to create a new program.
I also think that that program should be based on how Sketchup work and improved with some proven methods from CAD and, in terms of illustration, software as Illustrator and Affinity Designer. Both of these should be minor graphical features. Most of the tools should be based on CAD tools as it is CAD that is the real alternative to Layout, not graphical design software
Right On JQL,
My responses to your questions above …
I thought maybe the recent “LayOut Petition” to Trimble would have born some fruit in this regard … but the latest LayOut “improvements” were rather underwhelming, as usual. More code piled on top of the old platform, certainly not revolutionary, barely evolutionary?
As I have commented in previous threads, I think Trimble skips any major rework (or remake) of LayOut because it is too expensive, and they don’t perceive sufficient need, demand, or value. LayOut may simply not be in Trimble’s long range plan, so they are slowly obsoleting it through neglect. This is a shame, because LayOut could be a really great partner to SketchUp, the potential is there, but Trimble doesn’t seem to want to make a serious commitment.
I think they are aware of how much potential it has, I think they are committed to improve it, I even believe they have considered rewriting it from scratch but figured out it was better not.
Even with all the nuisances Layout has come a long way. I can create any project with it these days and have no real performance issues. Some years ago this would be impossible.
I guess it could go even faster but I’m ok at this point.
That is a big thing.
My main complain is really that it lacks features and the workflow for drawing and setting things up is not fluid enough with all the dragging around, lagging and methods that differ so much from SketchUp.
One thing that it also fails is in retrieving geometric and meta info from SketchUp. Labels, reports, tables, IFC classifications… All should be seamlessly setup and interconnected with the model.
A rewrite should make it’s performance much better but also it’s workflow.
One of my frustrations with the 2018 version - is having to manually shrink the viewports to what you want to see - further, too often I go to move something and I inadvertently move another view port. Another is - I try to select a viewport and move it, but it doesn’t get all the labels and they turn into pretzels as I move the viewport to another location.
