Do you use DC's as part of furniture/kitchen design?

Rich O Brien

I'm just wondering if there are many users out there who build/use DC's alot in there workflow?

Or is learning DC not high on the agenda?

rock1

I'm just wondering if there are many users out there who build/use DC's alot in there workflow?

Or is learning DC not high on the agenda?

I don't use much. Learning to build DCs is okay. But building them and actually putting all those functions is really a cumbersome process. Sometimes it looks as if we're writing a computer program.

ArCAD-UK

I can build DCs, but frequently it just seems too much work for the result. DCs are good for parts which use the copy function like stairs but the copy function isn't exactly user friendly if you want to create a matrix.

The biggest frustration comes with angles e.g. creating mitred corners.

Personally I feel happier creating separate components so I don't have to spend time setting the attributes.

Rich O Brien

Thanks guys

Would a DC pack that's geared around kitchen and furniture layout be useful?

Swap out handles, doors, cabinets, corbels in a few clicks? Dimension them quickly that type of thing?

utiler

Hey Rich,
Unless you are a cad monkey for a modular cabinet shop my opinion is to keep it simple.....
All my work is unique so the only DC's I would use are carcass models; the basic bones of the kitchens then apply a skin to it.

My idea of the ultimate SU tool for cabinetmaking (and construction modeling full stop) is to have a 'shell and core' type of tool.... Or 'profile and detail', what ever you want to call it.
Firstly we always work from the outside in. A building size is determined so quickly model what is needed to portray the idea..... Tweak it to suit final approval then apply a 'core' or 'detail' tool to it.
Eg: Wall shell could be a nominal thickness allowing for cavity construction then when finalized the actual elements within are applied to it. The same goes for floors, roofs, balustrades, etc, etc, etc...
This discussion is about cabinet design I know but the same applies.
Say a typical kitchen comprised of 3 elements; a kick board, carcass and countertop.
Start by roughing out your kitchen configuration. Input general HxWxD. Break this down to the 3 elements, set a height and depth of the kick, depth of countertop which leaves a carcass module. Identify locations for fixed brown goods and set locations for them which leaves the remainder for drawers, cupboard doors, etc....

Now once the overview is roughed in, move through each module and apply actual carcass thicknesses to gables, struts, etc to each till done and there you go. A fully customized kitchen fully detailed for take offs......

Shell and Core modeling; that's how i see the ultimate use of SketchUp getting too. It could be incorporated in such a way that is broad enough a tool that the end user manipulates it for use in whatever discipline they chose work in. (architecture, furniture, landscaping, etc....)

DC's surely have their place but times money.......

Thanks for the soapbox, Rich.
Microphone anyone?

ArCAD-UK

Sorry, not for me Rich. With my work, cabinet work is either bespoke or the client contacts the kitchen supplier to do design & install. Kitchen suppliers over here seem to be quite keen to supply that added value aspect in with the price and I can't compete 'cause they know what they can supply even if some of the resulting layouts are ####.

srx

@unknownuser said:

Shell and Core modeling; that's how i see the ultimate use of SketchUp getting too

Interesting idea...and the shell should follow core when we change it ...this is better then today BIM applications. The user defines simple geometry core (Sketchup is already the best tool for this), and then "attach" shell to it, so that it follows the core changes(Sketchup extended).. .

utiler

In many case srx, if this was implemented I would think people would stick to SketchUp more so than using there BIM software.
Something I didn't mention in my post above is that the the advantage of Shell and Core modelling is that for simple massing / sketch development modelling the 'shell' function can be used. This also reflects SketchUps' unwritten rule or 'model only what you need to see...'
Then when you need to detail beyond this and view sections/close-ups/etc the 'core' function is used to achieve this. And the Shell model gets turned off.....
Sorry to go off topic, Rich.

tomot

I recently was exposed to dynamic components unknowingly thru the Google Hohouse
In a perfect world I would have a component library, but I don't use components all that often, so there is no need to add to my lengthy Todo list, "keep components uptodate" which I don't use most of the time. Hence all to often procedure has a habit of getting in the way of the real world. "Like have you not done the vacuuming yet?"