How can anyone possibly use layout
-
Wow nice set of drawings there Francois!!
I can see where you are coming from now with the limitations of Layout for producing such docs. Still a ways off unless you have time up your sleeve!
Setting up notes for one would itself be a killer.
-
My problem with traditional CAD systems is the output. You just cannot simply get the same level of graphic output as easily as you can with the SU / LO process.
-
@unknownuser said:
My problem with traditional CAD systems is the output. You just cannot simply get the same level of graphic output as easily as you can with the SU / LO process.
those are really nice sonder.
might have to start working in color...
i really wish LO would allow for transparent type (haven't been able to do it on my mac, unless i'm missing something...).
and i guess i need to start assembling scrapbooks of data - little detail files that i can paste into new drawings that are rendered / exploded in LO, for use elsewhere.
-
@unknownuser said:
My problem with traditional CAD systems is the output. You just cannot simply get the same level of graphic output as easily as you can with the SU / LO process.
Impressive drawing. But I need to produce the same kind of drawings with associative dimensions (not just tags and text) so I'm looking to Rhino. As I'm learning Rhino I have found one feature that LO has that Rhino doesn't - vector and vector/raster hybrid. Rhino can't do a perspective drawing in vector - in other words the only output option in perspective with dimensions (and textures) is raster.
-
I can't take credit for the drawing - only teaching my Structural Engineer how to do it. He and the contractor's are loving these drawings. He ventures onto this site occasionally but hasn't posted his work.
BTW, Associative dimensions are in LO. Not sure why folks thing they are not.
-
I was going to ask what they were considering associative... They seemed quasi associative already both in SketchUp and Layout. When I move lines dims move with them and change measurement.
-
@unknownuser said:
BTW, Associative dimensions are in LO. Not sure why folks thing they are not.
I must be doing something wrong then. If I dimension something in LO and then have to alter the model in SketchUp, the dimensions don't update in LO when I update the reference.
-
No, I think you're right there. that's what i meant by quasi-associative. the dimensions are associative in their own respective environment. but not cross platform. SU dims are associative to SU linework and Layout dims are associative to Layout linework.
-
@krisidious said:
No, I think you're right there. that's what i meant by quasi-associative. the dimensions are associative in their own respective environment. but not cross platform. SU dims are associative to SU linework and Layout dims are associative to Layout linework.
Sure would be nice if it did work like that though. Definitely adds an opportunity for errors in dimensioning if you happen to miss updating some after a Sketchup model adjustment.
-
@bmike said:
i really wish LO would allow for transparent type (haven't been able to do it on my mac, unless i'm missing something...).
Hmmm? Does in windows! Have you turned off fill for the text box?
-
One thing I'm noting about a lot of drawings people are showing, does nobody like white space!
The one biggest tip in presenting anything is: MAKE WHITE SPACE YOUR FRIEND
-
@unknownuser said:
One thing I'm noting about a lot of drawings people are showing, does nobody like white space!
The one biggest tip in presenting anything is: MAKE WHITE SPACE YOUR FRIEND
Yeah, they must get printer ink for free
-
@richard said:
One thing I'm noting about a lot of drawings people are showing, does nobody like white space!
The one biggest tip in presenting anything is: MAKE WHITE SPACE YOUR FRIEND
I've gone in the exact opposite direction. I pack every available inch of my drawings because the field I'm in (retail design and display) tends to generate endless revisions and I got tired of emptying my recycle bin multiple times during the day. No doubt, you're right - a well balanced page with ample breathing room around the visual elements is the most pleasing to the eye but my drawings tend to be looking more and more like mosaics with every component tightly fitted to one another. Thank god for custom viewport shapes in AutoCAD
-
Richard. you are right about white space. It calms down the layout a lot. Sometimes a drawing can look like a total panic trying to communicate rather simple info.
Sonder, in the past I made many of those perspective details. But it does not work here in Holland. We need to measure on scale at the site from the drawing. Just to see if another option or detail would fit or not. We use a lot of A3 sized drawings on a scale of 1 to 1. Very easy to work with, especially for window frame details.
After many years of experience I have found out that providing the least amount of information in the most abstract form works best. And everything we put on paper for the contractor has been dimensioned to a fine level of detail.
And then along with that we also give a few sketchup illustrations. Just to get the idea of what we mean,
The drawings you show, however nice, would be far from effective in our projects. And a lot more time consuming than what we do now. We know since we did exactly what you do some years ago. But I must add that our projects are much and much more detailed and customized for a specific type of building.
And thanks for showing your great work, it does make us think again on how to use Layout & Sketchup.
Francois -
Hi Francois:
From the project you posted, it does not appear to be any more complex than anything we deal with. Your drawings, which are beautiful with many dimensions. However I see many things that do not require dimensions such as window sash, tube steel, framing members etc. These are static elements that are what they are. For instance an 11-7/8" LVL is 11-7/8" - no need for a dimension. Unless you folks are custom building every component, I do not see why perspective details don't work. Here the contractor's love them. I get far less questions in the field on very complex assemblies compared to the old days of 2d detailing. Our drawing sets are very detailed - typically 60- sheets or more in a set for a 3000 sf home. Those sets will contain 70-100 architectural details along with several sheets of structural details posted above.
Richard is correct, the dimensions in windows do adjust with changes in geometry, so they are associative. You can also dimension perspectives.
-
@unknownuser said:
Hi Francois:
From the project you posted, it does not appear to be any more complex than anything we deal with. Your drawings, which are beautiful with many dimensions. However I see many things that do not require dimensions such as window sash, tube steel, framing members etc. These are static elements that are what they are. For instance an 11-7/8" LVL is 11-7/8" - no need for a dimension. Unless you folks are custom building every component, I do not see why perspective details don't work. Here the contractor's love them. I get far less questions in the field on very complex assemblies compared to the old days of 2d detailing. Our drawing sets are very detailed - typically 60- sheets or more in a set for a 3000 sf home. Those sets will contain 70-100 architectural details along with several sheets of structural details posted above.
Richard is correct, the dimensions in windows do adjust with changes in geometry, so they are associative. You can also dimension perspectives.
I have had similar reactions to 3d details. Certain items 'are what they are' and don't require dimensioning nor fully detailing them out... other thing certainly do require a very detailed drawing.
What I've found interesting is that builders 'get it' alot quicker with some perspective views - and some have even offered suggestions on how they would make an attachment, or which specific hardware they would rather use - once they see how things fit together.
-
Agreed Mike - my details are always evolving from different contractor's input.
-
We do add a lot of perspective views of details and parts of the building. We just don't want to spend the time to detail everything we need to put on paper in 3D. That's why we also use an application like Vectorworks.
I added another example of how complicated it is to completely depend on 3D work in Sketchup yet. In this example you see a few pages of the work done in 3D with Sketchup.
Please don't click the link of you are on a slow connection, this is a 18 Mb file.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8cmhutqyfzbxuhz/FILLIEVRHOEVEN-EXAMPLE.pdfContractors here in Holland subcontract maybe over 80% of the work. They need contract like drawings with very strict dimensioned layouts. In most cases parts are made directly out of our drawings including windowframes. All windowframes are custom made exactly to our specifications and requirements for warranties. Imagine to have to do all this in 3D. Up to now we find ourselves trying to do the impossible in 3D. We want to work in 3d since we do understand the advantages. We haven't found the app or system yet to get it done the way it is required to do.
Something we don't want to do is highly detailed work in 3D as well and seperatly in 2D. Double work as nobody likes. Another thing is we don't want to get stranded in 3D slowing down our workflow or even worse, not getting it done at all and redoing stuff in 2D later on.
I hope the near future brings a single 3D workflow getting the right kind of abstraction like we have in 2D that is easy to work with and understood at the building site. You simply need to be able to meausure dimensions from paper or on an iPad to be able to improvise on site if needed. With an iPad this could be done in 3D but without it I don't now how you could from a perspective view.
Francois
-
That's a nice set Francois but those 3D raster images are pretty nasty... hard to believe they don't have a vector export for that software.
I'm still not seeing anything you can't do in SU/LO. they have recently added hidden background edges to Layout, however they don't stick around in vector or vector/raster hybrid.
The biggest limits I find in layout is the connection to BIM type info that others have like Autocad and such. Like others have said here, I've moved further and further away from over detailing. My sections are actually quite simplistic, I don't do dimensions on them or even callouts very often. And no one ever questions it... I've found that professionals in the respective fields usually know what they're doing and what's going on.
-
I agree with Kristoff. If anything, some of those complex details would be more clear in 3d. I've found this to be especially be true for flashing details.
I do understand the dilemma though, of trying to convert all your 2d work to 3d. That was still probably the biggest hurdle for me. That's all in the past now though and I have no intentions of returning to 2d detailing.
Advertisement