No Fudge With Free
-
Well, I appreciate your input and intention, even if it helps me not. I appreciate SUF very, very much; maybe you thought I was griping and that was likely my fault. I've been misunderstood on more than one occasion, and have rightfully, I think, been dissatisfied by claims made for SUF which I think are beyond what it provides, but that was not at all my purpose here. I was wondering if I were missing some capabilities of free that could help me do what I want to do. I'm not exporting to another program for the reasons you mention: time, tediousness and the need for back and forth updating. But doing it like I am may make FREER or at least better able to deal with the limitations which I share with my enabler (SUF). Thanks again for your tips.
-
@brookefox said:
.... I was wondering if I were missing some capabilities of free that could help me do what I want to do. ...
I like to think I'm pretty good at figuring out workarounds. However, I really don't understand the original problem. In part, I think, that was because you did not distinguish between SketchUp tools and Layout tools, calling the combination "Pro".
What I've gotten so far is that you would like to be able to make a section cut, but sometimes you want to edit the result. You can do that editing in Layout by, for instance, putting a white box with white lines over the bit you want to mask out, but you have not figured out how to do that in SketchUp alone. You hint that just hiding the offending bits is not a solution, but I don't have a clue why.
I would suggest that using a different app than Layout for image assembly, e.g., Word, OO Write, The Gimp, etc., would let you do Layout-kinds of things. Yes, updating is a little more awkward than using Layout, which can do it in seconds, but it usually at most only a couple of minutes for each round trip. I used to program on punch cards where it took 24-hour turnaround in the Computer Center to find out that you'd left out a semi-colon. You get good at checking your work and making sure you know what you're trying to do in each round rather than making repeated guesses.
If you would be willing to take another pass at extracting and describing the core limitation that you are struggling with, I will take another pass at looking for an effective workaround.
I have only limited familiarity with Layout, but I do have access to a system with Layout on it, so I could experiment to understand your goal. I do get that you're looking for a workaround that can be used with SU Free, but I don't yet understand the real issue. I hope you can clarify that for me.
Since I often make the claim that one can do just about everything with Free that one can with Pro, I have a small ego stake in seeing if I can make that true in this case.
I hope this helps,
August -
I appreciate that and them, TIG. Thank you. I should revisit them. My first attempts over a period led me to give up just because of the shenanigans you had to go through to make them work and which the users thereof could not therefore be free of when editing them, etc.. I decided for my purposes that I would just use the native stuff and try to work around the limitations: print only in ortho or very selected 3D views where the true nature of the text and or leaders was not evident, owing to the 2d nature of the view. If I had ongoing or extensive production needs I would have given up long ago. This time, though, VectorWorks remains unsheathed, and I plod along.
( 2Dlines, (of 2DTools fame) consisting actually as they do of faces, don't display in hidden line mode?)
-
@unknownuser said:
What I've gotten so far is that you would like to be able to make a section cut, but sometimes you want to edit the result. You can do that editing in Layout by, for instance, putting a white box with white lines over the bit you want to mask out, but you have not figured out how to do that in SketchUp alone. You hint that just hiding the offending bits is not a solution, but I don't have a clue why.
Hiding is not a preferred option, ever, but in this case it is not because the offending bits are part of geometry which is generally wanted; it is just the bits which are between the cutting plane and the cut face a fraction of an inch away that is not wanted. In the images, the little triangular bit is a cut pier block like the ones shown to the right down stream, but the little cut piece is impossible to make sense of and so is not welcome.
@unknownuser said:
I have only limited familiarity with Layout, but I do have access to a system with Layout on it, so I could experiment to understand your goal. I do get that you're looking for a workaround that can be used with SU Free, but I don't yet understand the real issue. I hope you can clarify that for me.
Since I often make the claim that one can do just about everything with Free that one can with Pro, I have a small ego stake in seeing if I can make that true in this case.
I daresay, respectfully, that is you ever tried to do architectural production work with free you would immediately withdraw your ego from the stake, or give it up. Wise me up here if I'm wrong.
(I'll insert some images here later.)
-
@brookefox said:
Hiding is not a preferred option, ever, ..., but the little cut piece is impossible to make sense of and so is not welcome.
My preference for your kind of problem is not for "hiding" in the sense of hidden geometry like the lines that defines the faces of what is to be a "smooth" surface. Rather I create a Layer, sometimes called "HIDDEN", sometimes part of a series of layers that have names more meaningful to the context. I just assign that layer to things that need to be occasionally hidden and then turn that layer on and off. That is much more convenient and controllable compared to the all-or-nothing nature of "Show Hidden Geometry."
You sound like you're pretty familiar with SU, but Layers is something that often trips up people who have a 2D background. In 2D, the operating metaphor of Layers is stacked sheets of vellum or mylar; you can arrange the order of the layers and control what is on top of what. In 3D, that ordering has no meaning.
Many 2D programs that have recently added 3D have that mixed metaphor where layer order has meaning in 2D but not 3D. AutoCAD is one such. Since SU has no 2D mode, its layers are only 3D so there is no order. In that sense, calling this visibility control grouping parameter "Layers" is probably a misnomer, but the term is likely here to stay.
Using Layer assignments (not "placement") to "tag" objects and then using Scenes to pre-define sets of Layers is a powerful technique in SketchUp and may be the solution to your problem.
@unknownuser said:
... [if] you ever tried to do architectural production work with free you would immediately withdraw your ego from the stake, or give it up. ...
Well, that is the difference between Free vs. Pro -- if you're doing production work, you're a pro, get the Pro product and make things easier on yourself. I never claimed that any workaround would be easy or something that someone would do hour after hour, day after day.
For me, the difference is impossible vs. doable, with focus on SketchUp itself, not all the bells and whistles of Layout. I have spent some hours with Layout on a couple of different projects and I have not seen anything that cannot be accomplished with free tools, just not as easily.
So far, the only thing that is impossible to do any other way has been creating Styles without Style Builder. There have been some Ruby Plugin attempts at things like dotted and dashed lines, but they are not completely satisfying because they create dashed and dotted geometry that then foreshortens and changes with perspective.
I hope this helps,
August -
Thanks, anyway. I don't want Pro as to me it is not 'pro' enough; I have had AutoCAD, do have Vectorworks, and have not sufficient need for a $500 SU as well. Perhaps if I were not a one man shop and did more and larger projects than I do... As it is I'm just working on this little issue, this little fraction of an inch wherein all is revealed.
-
I'm waiting to hear why Layers and Scenes doesn't work for you.
-
Why must one buy something that is free, just because they use it professionally? Many of us have and use lots of software that is free, including java, and adobe reader. Google has their own reason to offer SU non Pro for free.
-
@august said:
I'm waiting to hear why Layers and Scenes doesn't work for you.
There are scores of layers not being displayed in the scene shown, likewise different layer sets in scores of other scenes. The offending items are parts of groups on layers which I want displayed in this scene, i.e., '0 wall foundation / crawl - EXIST - footings, posts, misc to remain'. I think the most viable approach would be to bust the items out of their 'proper' group and put them in another not to be displayed group but this is tedious as it would only be effective for this one scene and so is a poor solution, in my opinion.
Another shortcoming of Free (incoming worm-can!!!) which you perhaps are not afflicted with, like many, and so have not recognized, is its inability to print to scale, in spite of SU claims to the contrary. My usual workaround may afford me a means of addressing my problem in hard copy, by editing the PDF. That is not, however, what I was looking for, and I haven't really figured that one out, either.
-
I think I'm catching up with you.
What I think it comes down to is that the section is accurately displaying a section through your drawing, but there are elements in the result that are annoying and/or confusing. Altering the drawing so those bits are on the other side of the section plane is not an option because they have meaning in other contexts. That's why making them into Hidden Geometry is awkward. You don't want to keep toggling settings in different views as you work through the drawing.
You don't want to have to create a new layer with a name like
0 wall foundation / crawl - EXIST - footings, posts, misc to remain - HIDE in XsecC
and then uncheck that in the XsecC Scene and make sure it's checked in all the other scenes. If there are six bits that need kludging in each section view, those could potentially be in six different layers so that's adding six more layers to the list for each section view that needs tweaking. This approach could easily add a couple of dozen extra layers to the list.
In Layout, because you are working in 2D, you can create masking bits that hide the offending pieces, and those bits are only in that view because they have been added to that view in Layout and are not part of the SketchUp model. And Layout allows you to work primarily in the context of your presentation drawing and dip in and out of SketchUp to make changes as needed, but always returning to Layout to see the final product in progress. You cannot create the same kind of masking bits in SketchUp because their edges will show and that defeats the purpose.
I agree, the more I work with Layout, the more I can see it as a very attractive tool for professionals. I'm very lucky that I have access to a system with Layout on it that does not have a timer ticking. It would be nice if you could have Pro and Free on the same system so the Pro trial timer would only tick down when you were using Pro features. Darn. They get me addicted to it and them make me pay to keep using. Or make me dependent on the generosity of friends. (SketchUp Addicts Anonymous, anyone?)
Maybe I should go over to the Layout forum and post a great big THANK YOU to all those folks who paid for the Pro product and thus supported me and everyone else who are having so much fun, amd even making money, using the Free product.
But I do get your dilemma. The "easy" way does seem to be a standing "edit" of a sort in a 2D program that modifies the image from SketchUp.
That leads me to something like MS Word. You can work in SU, export the current image, swap over to Word, click on the previous image there, go into it's properties and update/change the file that is the image source. I haven't experimented with the workflow, you might have to add a "Send to Back" operation on the image after you reload it. I'm not sure, but I think when you import an image into Word, you have the option of linking to the original file rather than keeping the data in Word, so you could Save in Word before you go to SU, then Revert in Word after you have exported the SU image and Word would automatically reload the new version.
Word will certainly let you add little masking bits that are invisible to the reader in the final version. You can lots and lots of Layout kinds of things in Word (but not dimensions and no click-through into the SU file).
All of the multiple steps in both SketchUp and Word could be automated with something like AutoIt3 (free for Windows), MacScript (free, do I have the name right?), or QuicKeys (Win and Mac, $120). Or Ruby in SU and Word VBA (both included with their products). Using any of these automation tools could get the in-and-out cycle down to just a couple of hotkey clicks.
Or you could go back to my rejected suggestion at the top of this post and decide that adding 20 extra layers is worth $25 per layer that you aren't having to spend on Pro, and worth an amortized couple of hours per layer of programming time to get AutoIt or MacScipt to work for you or even $6 per layer and still some programming time with QuicKeys.
You have several options, nearly all free, all very doable, with varying degrees of difficulty and usability.
If you go the max-DIY-automation route, Ruby and VBA or AutoIt or MacScript, you might have a package that you could sell 25 copies of for $20 and pay for a copy of Pro.
I hope I've provided a perspective or a suggestion that helps.
August
-
@honoluludesktop said:
Why must one buy something that is free, just because they use it professionally? ...
Google does not care if you use the free version of SketchUp professionally.
Some companies do. Microsoft has a less expensive version of Office, the Student and Home Edition, that specifically says "non-commercial use" in every title bar on the product. Others specifically say in their license agreements that for commercial use you must buy the product. Sometimes you are on the honor system for that.
Why must one? Because it's theirs. How they share it with others is up to them.
Usually, for small products, if there is a free version it is limited in some way, sometimes in very frustrating ways like not being able to save your work. More and more, the free versions are becoming useful, standalone products but you must pay for extra features.
Acrobat Reader is free, but to make comments on a PDF and share and combine those comments with and from several people, you must buy Acrobat Pro. It used to be that you needed Pro to create a PDF, but Adobe made the PDF Specification public and now there are various free or cheap ways of making PDFs so Adobe is focusing on things like shared review and other features of PDFs that are expensive for the knock-off folks to develop.
I applaud Google for how much functionality they provide in the free product and how the features you must pay for are generally features that you would only need if you are using the product professionally. Thus, in general, the folks who are making money with the product are supporting the availability of the free version. That may be way too "socialistic" for some, but I find it elegant and very progressive marketing.
I am not telling anyone that they should buy the Pro version of SketchUp. Neither is Google. But fortunately I have "access" so I know what it can do. I'm trying to help by offering money-saving workarounds. Unfortunately, workarounds are not often time-savers. If they take too long for your needs, then maybe you need to consider a purchase. It's a simple choice, but, thankfully, you do have a choice.
I hope this helps,
August -
August, You wrote "if you're doing production work, you're a pro, get the Pro product and make things easier on yourself." Guess that was a misstatement:-) I don't think anyone here advocates using SketchUp Pro for free, or "student software" commercially.
-
You have offered me a job description entailing a business plan I'm having a hard time endorsing. Going in and out of other progs as you again suggest still has the pitfalls mentioned earlier. As far as a 'solution' to my original problem goes, I'll have to re-read the thread, I guess, as I don't remember anything I can use. I mentioned in my original post that I was aware of the usefulness of Layout in addressing my issue, hoping to imply that I ain't got and don't want Layout.
I do appreciate your efforts.
@unknownuser said:
But I do get your dilemma. The "easy" way does seem to be a standing "edit" of a sort in a 2D program that modifies the image from SketchUp.
That leads me to something like MS Word. You can work in SU, export the current image, swap over to Word, click on the previous image there, go into it's properties and update/change the file that is the image source. I haven't experimented with the workflow, you might have to add a "Send to Back" operation on the image after you reload it. I'm not sure, but I think when you import an image into Word, you have the option of linking to the original file rather than keeping the data in Word, so you could Save in Word before you go to SU, then Revert in Word after you have exported the SU image and Word would automatically reload the new version.
Word will certainly let you add little masking bits that are invisible to the reader in the final version. You can lots and lots of Layout kinds of things in Word (but not dimensions and no click-through into the SU file).
All of the multiple steps in both SketchUp and Word could be automated with something like AutoIt3 (free for Windows), MacScript (free, do I have the name right?), or QuicKeys (Win and Mac, $120). Or Ruby in SU and Word VBA (both included with their products). Using any of these automation tools could get the in-and-out cycle down to just a couple of hotkey clicks.
Or you could go back to my rejected suggestion at the top of this post and decide that adding 20 extra layers is worth $25 per layer that you aren't having to spend on Pro, and worth an amortized couple of hours per layer of programming time to get AutoIt or MacScipt to work for you or even $6 per layer and still some programming time with QuicKeys.
You have several options, nearly all free, all very doable, with varying degrees of difficulty and usability.
If you go the max-DIY-automation route, Ruby and VBA or AutoIt or MacScript, you might have a package that you could sell 25 copies of for $20 and pay for a copy of Pro.
I hope I've provided a perspective or a suggestion that helps.
-
@honoluludesktop said:
August, You wrote "if you're doing production work, you're a pro, get the Pro product and make things easier on yourself." Guess that was a misstatement:-) I don't think anyone here advocates using SketchUp Pro for free, or "student software" commercially.
Hi H.
I was not saying you "must" buy Pro, that was your term. I certainly meant no implication that simply because one is working professionally that one has an obligation to purchase the professional version of something (unless that is a license requirement, but that license issue had not surfaced by the time of my statement you are taking issue with).
I was intending to suggest an attitude that if the free product becomes too time consuming for commercial work, there is an alternative solution. If muddling through with the Free version is cost-effective for you, by all means, do as you please. It is truly your business.
Brooke started out asking if anyone knew of a solution to his frustration with a problem for which his only known solution was Layout. I've been trying to give him the best strategies, ideas, and workarounds that I know of or that I can come up with, including ideas that, after some development work, would (in my opinion, as far as I have understood his problem) solve his problem for the long-term in single button clicks. He is not satisfied with any of them, yet he says that he does not want Layout.
I think that is an accurate summation of the thread so far. I am not insisting that Brooke buy Pro. I am suggesting that it may be the easiest solution for him and his business. I am only suggesting.
Beyond that, I'm out of ideas. I have put a lot of energy into this thread because I am very interested in ideas that provide Pro features, Layout-like features, etc. for SketchUp Free. I am a bit disappointed that Brooke has rejected all of my ideas out of hand, mostly saying "that won't work for me" while not explaining the conflict, thus not giving me any deeper understanding of his real problem.
I think I have at least a limited understanding of the problems facing an architect when using SketchUp. I used to be a professional draftsman, mostly doing installation diagrams for hospital linear accelerators (a B.A. in Physics does not, on its own, open a lot of doors) in the pre-CAD days.
But eventually I must stop fighting the wind. I hope that someone, if not Brooke, has gotten, or will get, something out of this conversation. I got an idea or two that I might pass on to someone else and/or try myself.
For what it's worth, I hope this helps,
August -
@unknownuser said:
Brooke has rejected all of my ideas out of hand
Uh, beg pardon.
Regarding your rejection of my rejection,
That's out of hand!
Advertisement