How can anyone possibly use layout
-
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.
-
@krisidious said:
I'm still not seeing anything you can't do in SU/LO.
The biggest limits I find in layout is the connection to BIM type info that others have like Autocad and such.
I think the first point of not seeing anything that can't be done in LO is countered by the second!
-
Just because you could do it doesn't make it practical.
As for the BIM. Eh. Wouldn't effect my work enough any time soon to make it decisive. I can wait... the parametric effects are attractive though.
-
Was his drawing using BIM info for notes and such? I didn't know if it was or not.
and no, the capability to do something does not make it practical.
-
@krisidious said:
Was his drawing using BIM info for notes and such? I didn't know if it was or not.
and no, the capability to do something does not make it practical.
I dunno. You mentioned BIM. I am just adding debate fodder. I'd like to try to use SU-LO more myself.
-
Hi Kristoff,
don't know what you mean by raster images and vector software. The 3D's are made in Sketchup. Just added there to give some idea.
We sometimes receive 3D dwg files made by the subcontractor for the steel work. We just import them in Sketchup on top of our 3D models in different colors. That's how we check for crashes between construction elements. Basically that is some form of BIM.
In Holland the way we work is not really BIM. The way contracts are set makes it basically impossible to do actual BIM. In other words, to have a true information model shared by all parties involved is not possible. Other parties are involved to late in the process to get them all working on the same model. And then there is the question of liability. Nobody wants to share anything unless properly paid for and without any guarantees on the work delivered. That will change over time as well but for the next few decade's I don't see that happen.I understand everything could be done in Layout. But I have never seen anybody do what we need to do in Layout, neither have I been able to get it done myself. I am afraid that Sonder in Holland would have to go back to either draw in 2D or have to buy Revit. I know a few offices who do all in Revit. They are now either bankrupt or admit the work takes over 5 times more effort. Sometimes when a project actually pushes through they get a bit of profit from all the work involved to sweat the details and I mean all the details done in 3D. Imagine the average office here sees only 1 out 10 project built. The rest is all cancelled sooner or later hoping as much of the work will be paid for.
Its not a question if 3D will be the future. I have no doubt that within 5 to 10 years 2D drafting is done for. Student will even not know how to do 2D. But I am not convinced with what I see here however well done, that what we need to do can be done with Layout. Vectorworks also has a workflow in 3D with all sorts of BIM functionality. It works all right if you spend enough time.
I was at a lecture on BIM were a middle sized Dutch office showed their work done for BIM projects all in 3D and rather detailed in Vectorworks. Half of what I saw I could have done easily in Sketchup and maybe Layout. Last I heard of them a month ago was that they too have gone bankrupt, 14 people now unemployed. A client we worked for, one of the biggest firms here (160 architects) was very much into Revit. Last year they went bankrupt. The list goes on and the latest market research showed almost 70% of architects (since 2008) in Holland are now unemployed.This is how it is these days here. Its stalls progress a little I would say. One or two projects that somehow does not work out so well means the end of it, not for us but likely for all offices here in the Netherlands.
Apart from OMA (Koolhaas) of course. I think they do their design work with hand sketches and have the technical work done externally. Also a development I see happening. The total separation between design and engineering. Webdesign is already like that. Top designers work in Photoshop or Indesign while a small team of IT specialists program the html code. Compare that to architects working in Rhino, Z-brush, Modo and so on while a team of engineers are doing the Revit models after the design work has been done.
Francois -
As far as the Raster I was speaking of specifically and only page 12. I thought it was so pixilated because you had mentioned earlier that rhino or visualarq didn't have 3D vector lines.
2D is much faster... I face that a lot in my business. I could be drawing my houses quicker in 2D and saving time and money. However, I really enjoy doing the 3D and frankly I'm not willing to give up that work/enjoyment level. I really hate drafting... Ok, maybe I don't hate it, but I don't love it.
Some might think I'm selling or defending SU/Layout, actually what I'm doing is defending my choice of software as being the most efficient and cost effective method of accomplishing my goal. To admit that some other program does it better would mean I had wasted a lot of time... Deep inside I want to know if there is something better, but I'm afraid to find out there is.
-
@krisidious said:
As far as the Raster I was speaking of specifically and only page 12. I thought it was so pixilated because you had mentioned earlier that rhino or visualarq didn't have 3D vector lines.
I think that comment may have come from me and therefore I should clarify a bit: Rhino is a very complex program and has a number of different output functions (wireframe, shaded, rendered, technical, pen, etc.) most of which you can customize - rather like Styles in SketchUp. Some of the output variations are vector based. The point that I was making is that there is not an easy way to output vector perspective with dimensions. If you do a 4 viewport layout (top, side, detail, perspective) you'll see the dimensions in the orthographic views but not in the perspective view. There are workarounds for this but they are just that - workarounds, which I translate as: "obstacles to a clean, fast workflow."
Furthermore, Rhino lacks the hybrid mode of vector / raster that Layout has (which is the one function that frequently brings me back to LO). Rhino, like many of the big 3D modeling applications, is putting a lot of effort into a built in rendering engine that works inside of the main application. But going forward, I find myself having less and less interest in photo realistic work. The various graphical styles that are present in this thread are, to my eye, more interesting and more useful to the complex process of transitioning from design to fabrication than any attempt to mimic photography could be. Fortunately, Rhino is also investing a lot of energy in expanding the NPR possibilities in the program.
-
To Kristoff,
after 25 years working with CAD I know that any choice is the wrong choice. It all changes all the time. Ten years from now nobody works with Revit or Sketchup anymore. Most of us will not even be able to open the files we have made up till now. I know architects, retired who can no longer open their files of ten years back.
But, about waisting time, people who drove a T-ford never waisted any time, they went from A to B just as we do.To Arail1,
photorealistic renders from Sketchup work is used here daily to help with design decisions. Its just great to see what a design actually looks like. We have come to the point that there is basically no difference anymore between the rendering and the built result. Our customers love it (the few ones we still have ..
I added a small render we made of the project I showed the 2D work at first. I loved the way I could discuss the color of the front door. We used Accoya with a certain type of wood stain. This house is being built now. The bricks I photographed from a house in Belgium and texture mapped them in Sketchup for render. We order the same bricks for this project. Then I used a specific textured coating on the steel beam I saw used in a new museum in Antwerpen. I also changed the steel beam from UNP to UPE with a more straight appearance. All this I could test and see photorealisticly almost in real time in Sketchup. I must say that photorealistic rendering is a lot of fun while working on details and design especially because clients get more involved in this part of the work. They sometimes even spend a little more for more quality because they can actually see why and how.Reading the response on my original question it came to my mind that what we are really doing is using a 3D model to make 2D images either in perspective view or cross sections, elevations and so on. Its actually rather backwards.
Imagine a contractor being send your detailed Sketchup model. On his iPad he can with a fingertip click on a beam and the location pops up, the number of components and how the beam should be coated along with the dimensions. Imagine he now touches the button for a render to see what the coating would look like. Imagine a reference to a manufacturers website showing prices and alternative profiles. He would just be browsing your model checking the specs and dimensions. He could with a swipe of his fingers cross section the model or use Google Street view to look at elevations.
Imagine this can already be done if Trimble instead of going back in time would move fore ward. Forget Revit, Layout, Vectorworks and whatever silly app. They all set you back with enormous amounts of extra work that is hardly paid for. We need an application that can read Sketchup models properly and in a way that a contractor can get his information directly out of the model.I hope my fantasy will come true otherwise we will all be forced to work as idiots communicating with silly static images totally waisting all the energy that went into the original 3D model.
I think the whole BIM thing is a marketing hoax. We still think people want 2D drawings automatically generated by a 3D model just because the model can not be read by the people on the building site.
A while back I needed to send an engineer a dwg file so he could get the dimension of the site. I send him the file after he replied. Where are the dimensions, you forgot to put them in. I told him he can just measure in the open file any dimension he needs.....
Francois
ps, sorry for the long text.
-
frv -
Maybe it's because I was a builder before I moved to architectural / product visualization that I find the photo real to be the least engaging of the tasks I'm responsible for.The attached image is a rendered SketchUp model for a series of large industrial fans (well over 10' tall - think Steam Punk without the fancy dials and knobs) that were the backdrop for a clothing display.
The client loved it, I got paid, but I dreaded having to do more of them. There's something so mechanical, almost deadening about the process of imitating a photograph. It's rather like being an artist and knowing before you start what a painting is going to look like when it's finished.
Now, the technical drawings, the CNC files, the whole graphical structure that converts these images into something that the shop can build - that I don't find deadening.
-
@frv,
Aside of the topic: I like the project's render and the explanation that goes with it.
Also makes me want to see the detail solution to insulate the UPN. 'Koudebrug'?In Belgium I used to work with Vectorworks and Sketchup too.
The reason is I could keep focus on the design that way cause both pieces of software are just easy.
Now that I worked for 5 years in Australia, I witness how much energy here goes into 'pulling things of' in Revit.
The focus on design is almost lost as everybody seems to waste all their energy in getting the bloody software to work properly for them....and it hardly ever does.
Revit really puts a downer on the the architect's profession ...unless you have the personality that likes the software more than making good design.And yes, Layout is not ready for production (yet).
The lag in updating , not enough 2D tools etc....
Advertisement