How can anyone possibly use layout
-
I don't know why you're looking for people who have hit a brick wall with LayOut. If they have it's their own fault because they haven't learned how to use it correctly. Do you want reviews on how a motorcycle drives from people who doesn't know how to drive one?
-
Layout simply does not have the sophisticated line drawing workflow of a nice drafting package like Vectorworks. There is a strong tradition of communicating 3D projects through 2D drawings using delicate line weights and styles. When an art director says "make that line dashed" or "make that one thicker and red" it can't just happen like in a 2D drafting set up.
I believe that building projects as 3D models is a much more efficient and sophisticated way to design but we still have to commit it to paper to communicate. If you have a clean, accurate 3D build then layout is definitely the fastest way to present that model. Just don't expect it to produce intricate drafting documents in a traditional sense. My advice would be to rely more on the 3D as much as possible to communicate and use layout to add the details.
I think a good layout document can speak more clearly to a wider group of people than a traditional drawing set. Some nice 3D views, a few choice measurements, good notes and suddenly everyone has the same picture of the project - laymen, tradespeople, committee members, administrative staff, your kids - everyone.
Layout could be better - a lot better - but I think the big brick wall is mainly shifting gears.
-
@timzy said:
Just don't expect it to produce intricate drafting documents in a traditional sense. My advice would be to rely more on the 3D as much as possible to communicate and use layout to add the details.
I think a good layout document can speak more clearly to a wider group of people than a traditional drawing set.
Layout could be better - a lot better - but I think the big brick wall is mainly shifting gears.
Actually it won't be traditional. It may be better. I myself haven't delved so deep, but Sonder, Bmike, and others have shown what is possible, and the output can be quite intricate. They had to approach it in a different way than they did their former CAD (e.g. AutoCAD) and it took time to rebuild their method. But we now have examples, books and videos mounting, to give the rest of us an idea of how to proceed. For myself, I use LO for presentation of 3d and 2d schematics, and I use it for the elevations for CD's.
Like you I already have my 2d CAD method which is more direct. And I will not bother to transition until there's a need or advantage. If I do need to make minor changes it IS many more steps to output in SU-LO. But I think this time lag lessens with getting your workflow to become second nature. I can relate to the processing lags for each step, especially in LO rendering, even with an 8 core Pro. I hope 2013 does indeed improve that. I know that the most recent SU-LO job I did would have been impossible before I got my (latest-highest build) MBP. So I hope the "under-the-hood" improvements show up in even more performance down the road. Just hoping.
But your spinning beach ball issues don't relate to my experience. If the file is reasonable in SU, it should be at least "doable" in LO.
-
@dave r said:
Francois, I will tell you that if you aren't establishing the views you want as scenes in SketchUp, you're probably wasting your time with LayOut. There is a proper work flow for this stuff.
If you have the time would you consider expanding on the comments above? I stumble around in Layout, using it mainly to format 3D output without annotations. I'm sure I'm not alone in needing some insight into a more productive workflow with the program.
-
As stated above, you need to approach the use of Layout with an entirely different work flow than you would with traditional CAD programs. I only use SU and LO for all my work, and I can confirm that extremely detailed sets of drawings can be produced extremely fast. I am at my 9th set of detailed CD's in the past 12 months, to different building departments, with zero comments being issued. I attribute this to the level of detail I am able to provide. A level that is simply too cumbersome to provide in traditional CAD programs.
The slowness you are seeing, given the 8 core processor, is due to either a crappy video card in that MAC or more likely, you are trying to vector render and entire SU model.
You just need to take more time with it and figure out where the strengths lie.
-
I know about how to convert to 3D modeling and communicating on paper.
I am not looking for all that refinement in 2D at all.Just a resonable workflow were elevations and some perspectives, maybe a "filled" crosssection with some basic dimensions tell the story of first tryouts of a design.
If this means going complete slowmotion, lets say 90% waiting for redraws and the occaisional input from my side I would go mad. That is how it feels now and to many others I assure you.
So we are doing something wrong. Not just a little here or there but a major step is not clear stalling even the easiests of tasks to a standstill.
I will go and see what it is. But its sure not Sketchup which to me is always fast enough.
Tx, really for the replies, very appreciated.
Francois -
Francois, I don't know how many times I've written this on this forum in the last few weeks but render times with 2013 are so much shorter than in LO3 that I can render entire highly detailed models in only a few minutes. I'm not sitting waiting for the renders to complete like I was with LO3.
Arail, you should look at Sonder's videos showing how he works.
-
Vector rendering perspective views on complex models still takes some time... but not nearly as much and should complete in a reasonable time... a few seconds? under a minute.
-
well.... I am not going to use Layout anyhow no matter how many times
ok, sorry, I could not help that, I was just distracted by these smilies. Who ever uses these critters. But its late and so ..
tx for the help so far. I am going to set my self up with something simple enough to test with.
If I hear you all right it should be working and in a productive way as well.I think all has been said about my outcry here on Layout. It seems a matter some basic training. Lets see were I get with that.
Francois -
lots already said... but detailed drawings can be quick, and beautiful (IMHO) - like Sonder's work... and others.
-
[quote]...and beautiful (IMHO) ...[/url]
And yours, Mike. And yours.
I'll repeat myself. Anyone who claims LayOut is unusable just flat out hasn't bothered to learn how to use it.
-
@dave r said:
@unknownuser said:
...and beautiful (IMHO) ...[/url]
And yours, Mike. And yours.
I'll repeat myself. Anyone who claims LayOut is unusable just flat out hasn't bothered to learn how to use it.
Thanks DaveR, taken with much respect from you!
There are others doing very very nice work...
-
Yes Mike, those are some of the examples that made me first want to move over to Layout...
-
Hi,
tx for posting your examples. Saw them before in another thread. Not to speak against them, they look impressive but the work in fact is rather simple. Mostly a repetition of more or less the same wooden frames with very little added in Layout.The work we do is multitude more complex, in amounts of geometry and various types of geometry with a lot more to organize in terms of dimensions and text.
It's not that I think Layout is useless, on the contrary, I think with proper development it shows a lot of potential. But it does not compare to VisualARQ for Rhino, Vectorworks, Revit, or ArchiCad, not even remotely.
If you are working at an architectural office promoting the use of Layout you have to remember it competes with the mentioned applications. All offices finalize drawings based upon 3D models somehow. So, I was just wondering who is actually able to get the work done and how since I could not get much production out of Layout.
The combination Vectorworks and Sketchup is so much faster than the hassle I met with Layout for our projects.But I do see I need to get into it deeper to see if now and if at all in the near future Layout could become a serious option for at least some part of the design process communicating with our clients.
Francois -
Chief Architect checks your drawing for code compliance...
-
@unknownuser said:
... with very little added in Layout.
I think that last bit is key. Even when I used AutoCad with HSB for timber, and AutoCad Architectural desktop for buildings, I did as much as possible in model space, and only used paper space for notation. Even then I was starting to move away from complex and tedious hatching over 2d work and was trying to model things like I would build them.
So sure, my work might be 'simple' (I have a few complete buildings on the boards) - but it is an effective tool. If I were doing more full home or building design I'd develop my approach along the lines of Sonder.
Would SU+LO work for commercial projects? Maybe. Depends on what you are doing. A nice feature of it is that you don't need to be a CAD expert or have to shell out many thousands of dollars to get up and running. And you don't need an IT staff or paid consultant to work through the myriad setup stuff to just draw stuff. Yes, I see the value (and have used) BIM based programs. But they come at a fairly large expense. What I like about SU+LO is that it really feels like an extension of the drafting table, taking back some of the ugly and coldness and lack of spirit that CAD brought us.
Does this Rhino plugin allow one to create 2d PDFs with notation?
I'd really love to see some threads on competing packages.
-
Mike,
I agree the expense that some of these packages are not very inviting. For us here and many others it takes revit out of our options.
Have a look here http://www.visualarq.com/gallery/videos/
I have no experience with VisualARQ but it looks suprisingly good. The expense seems to be in line with something we might invest in.I also agee that Layout is getting better and the focus on Layout might be Trimbles ownership now. Also that sounds good. Who wants to model a building just to start all over with another package for the sake of engineering.
But our drawings are a mixup of images, lots of text and dimensions and lots of revisions and include lots of references to sitemaps, pdf's with existing doucments in case of remodelings and so on. So far out of reach of Layouts capabilities that its really useless to start up Layout every once in a while.
And then, Layouts slowness referencing to a Sketchup model does not help. I am no longer patient enough to sit behind my system waiting for redraws and updates. I am used to instant feedback while typing and getting projects to my clients. Just slicing a SU model for further use in Vectorworks is very quick as well.
Its no fun seeing a project slow down because the application is not up to speed. Sometimes its easier on the mind to redo something than to consiously and carefully setting up files and references to get a little benifit later on. Much of the benifit is often waisted because projects don't pull through or are changed so much that the original work is better deleted.
Francois -
@frv said:
Mike,
I agree the expense that some of these packages are not very inviting. For us here and many others it takes revit out of our options.
Have a look here http://www.visualarq.com/gallery/videos/
I have no experience with VisualARQ but it looks suprisingly good. The expense seems to be in line with something we might invest in.How does one get that into 2d construction documents?
@frv said:
But our drawings are a mixup of images, lots of text and dimensions and lots of revisions and include lots of references to sitemaps, pdf's with existing doucments in case of remodelings and so on. So far out of reach of Layouts capabilities that its really useless to start up Layout every once in a while.
Not sure, but I bring in PDFs of details (typically from an engineer I work with), images, SketchUp, etc. And I add text, notes, and dimensions as needed. I stay away from hatching, and 2d linework whenever possible.
@frv said:
And then, Layouts slowness referencing to a Sketchup model does not help. I am no longer patient enough to sit behind my system waiting for redraws and updates. I am used to instant feedback while typing and getting projects to my clients. Just slicing a SU model for further use in Vectorworks is very quick as well.
I've been very impressed with the speed improvements in 2013. Huge difference. Night and day. Still slows down just a bit when re-rendering the entire drawings set when running vector and working on a large model (Round Barn) - but way better.
@frv said:
Its no fun seeing a project slow down because the application is not up to speed. Sometimes its easier on the mind to redo something than to consiously and carefully setting up files and references to get a little benifit later on. Much of the benifit is often waisted because projects don't pull through or are changed so much that the original work is better deleted.
Perhaps its just not for you. Lots of options out there. For me, speed in SketchUp, simple presentations to clients, and then maintaining that look into CDs and assembly drawings is what works.
I'd love to try out Rhino, can't seem to get the OSX download page to work on Safari or Chrome. And I'd love to try out other options - but in the end, as much as I do by sharing 3d models, I still need to get 2d work out. I'm not interested in doing this work in AutoCAD. Revit is interesting, but would bankrupt me with licensing and learning curve... so for me, this is where I'm at.
-
I don't think complexity will have any issue on using layout. The problem with most architectural firms is they have invested years into their CAD standards and details. While I focus mainly on homes, some of them are quite complex. I have also done a fire station using this system with no issues at all.
I think the best aspect of SU/LO is being able to visualize the project and details in a way that typical CAD systems cannot. To me that would make it an ideal candidate for very complex projects.
-
and then sonder shows up and makes me feel inadequate...
very nice work. an inspiration, for me, if / as / when i continue to move from complex frames / construction to more whole house...
Advertisement