Construction & Working Drawings - Discussion
-
@bjanzen said:
Aw, come on, baseLINE, you're not motivating me to help out here...
When you mention "Also came up with a dashed lines routine using a custom sketchup style with dashed lines. The only thing that sucks about it is that you have to have it render in 'raster' instead of vector so the dashed lines are kind of fuzzy looking. ", please select the model in LayOut and render as vector (in the SketchUp Model inspector) and they'll look sharper. I've played around with crude hatching patterns doing this, and it's not totally worthlessly sucking bad
.b
It's not my job to motivate you. Man-up and put out a viable product, or people are going to go somewhere else.
Also you can't do vector with a dashed linestyle (from style builder) because it turns it into a solid line. But thanks for assuming that I didn't know how to switch between vector and raster in layout, that was awesome.
Just read what you wrote, it's f*ing garbage. As somebody on the SketchUp team, your job is either to say "you're right we'll get on that" or don't say anything at all. You make me mad when you are apologizing for it's shortcomings. Just make it better, thats your job so just do it. wtf.
-
BaseLINE, please, watch your language.
Dashed lines of those sketchy edges cannot be displayed in vector rendering mode because sketchy styles of that nature (made with StyleBuilder) are all raster image (png) based lines. LO is not an application to turn raster images to vectors.
When working in vector rendering mode and exploding your SU model in LO, you can edit any line to give them different weights or dashes. This is not a SU feature (never has been and never has been suggested that it would ever be) so obviously you cannot expect to bring anything like that from SU to LO.
-
Um, I'll let Gai take care of this. Unless you write details out of what you're trying to do, I have to make assumptions in your case and try to provide answers. I could just come back at every request with more questions, but I tend to think it moves this process too slowly, so I'll take a stab at an answer with limited information. Even if it doesn't help you personally, immediately, this is a community forum and it may help someone else.
Man up? Hahahahaha....
b
-
Well this thread managed to last nine pages before somebody started swearing. Bjanzen your input is welcomed, by most of us.
-
Gaius, thanks for the advice you're the man. However this is just a hack - honestly we need dashed lines in layout, like an option or a style in layout to dash all lines on a layer.
bjanzen, why don't you send me a set of construction docs you've put together with LayOut. If they look halfway decent then i'll shut up.
Point is LayOut is 'nice', and it works OK, but it's 'nice' in the same way that doesn't get you laid at a bar. We need something with some real horsepower, maybe not something that can design the next high-rise but at least something that can hold it's own.
Ok i'm going to stop talking about this until I have something real to report. Updated CDs should be done this week i'll post them.
KJM
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Barry didn't have sets of construction drawings put together with LO after all he is not an architect. In fact, I have never put a whole set of drawings together either as I am not an architect either so I wouldn't need them at all.
I have seen a couple of nice examples from some gentlemen above like William manning or Eric Schimel and others - also by woodworkers such as Dave Richards (and again, by others).
Barry, as a developer would probably only need to monitor discussions like this and implement what they can - within a certain time frame and budget - and of course, they always have to have priorities.
In LO 1, line weights and styles were altogether impossible so they added them to LO 2.0 and though it is a bit cumbersome (vector render > explode et all), we have them at least. Yet we need to understand that you can only affect your inserted SU model in such a drastical way that it will ultimately destroy the reference back to the model itself (i.e. it is an irreversible action). And yes, I see that the very main point in LO is to keep the very close relationship between the 3D model and its 2D representation as far and long as possible. This is still not a CAD program and a full fledged drafting tool - however much users wish it to be and try to use it like that. But according to user input (wish lists and feature requests) it seems that the dev team is inclined to modify it in this direction.
In LO 1 (and even 2.0), the concept always was to do all your dimensioning in SU and only "render" them, together with the model itself, in LO. Then there was a huge demand for dimensioning straight in LO and it seems they listened (far from perfect, I know, but much better than it used to be without it).
I have three completely different feature requests at least two of which would be much easier to implement in my opinion, than all these drafting tools. Yet I understand that development needs to go along the majority of users and I shut up (or wait, maybe I will bump those ideas once the next development stage is due...)
-
Hi everyone, Until V7, Google's published position was that it would not try to compete with production Cad software. There seems to be a shift from that position, but as anyone who has mastered the use of Cad production software for buildings realizes, V7.1 is just a first step in that direction. I draft with a minimum of 4 line weights, consisting of 4 line fonts each, and perhaps about 10 cross hatches. Construction documents can easily contain 100's of 36"X42" sheets with drawings, and references between drawings that must be accessed and edited in a quick easy steps. The drawings in a set are done in at least 5 different scales. A building consist of 1000's of specified items, the spatial relationship of which must be clearly drawn. The graphic tools used to draft these details must be a part of the program, not plugins supported by persons who may not be available to update them over the life of the software. Architectural production Cad must be accessable to a team of Architects, their Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, and Civil consultants. Each with their own special drafting needs needs. Sigh, I could go on and on, and as good as LO and SU are, they fall short of what is required of a mature Cad drafting system for the assembly, and maintenance of building production documents.
I think that to represent otherwise is misleading, especially to student Architects.
-
This is why Google has always emphasised that LO is not - and is not even trying to be - a CAD software just a 2D "presentational tool" for your quick SU designs (and not fully fledged construction plans!) in 3D.
For a woodworker, who does not need all the stuff you listed above, this can be the ultimate tool. For me, as an archaeologist (where we also need to produce site drawings of all sorts) it can also be such. For an architect, who is also tied by strict regulations most of the times, this is only part of the design process.
-
A couple of comments:
baseLine, Gai's right: I'm not an architect, and my models and LayOut files are far lacking from some of the brilliant work of our customers. I'm not alone in that category, and it's that way with almost any software product. My goal would not be to limit the world to my level of talent in any field. We're not asking you to shut up. We're simply requesting that you try to be civil. Being cantankerous does not make you Steve Jobs or Leonard Bernstein. It's my fault that I read your post too quickly to see that you did your own line style from StyleBuilder. Let's move on.
honoluludesktop wrote:
I think that to represent otherwise is misleading, especially to student Architects.I don't think we're representing this as the best package for all architects in all situations. Many SketchUp users aren't even architects. You can't assume that what's right for your situation is right for everyone. A couple of co-workers (who are architects) visited their grad school professors' classes this past week, and people are using SketchUp and LayOut in pretty good numbers. I think it'd be good for students to have a breadth of understanding of what's possible, then let them decide for themselves.
The prevailing thought seems to be "you guys fall short of what I want in a software package for my job". That's fine to express those thoughts, and we continue to try to improve. I think you should stop worrying that we're spraining our shoulders patting ourselves on the back.
b
-
Being an old guy and having done many sets of working drawings and renderings by hand, I am always somehow amused by how much these computer tools have empowered a lot of people whom otherwise would be having a great deal of difficulty producing anything of the quality these tools allow. Having used SketchUp since the @Last version I am still amazed at it's capabilities every time I use it, which is in my case virtually every day.
Really what this discussion seems to be about is integration, and I'll admit it would be great to stay within on software package to produce everything from preliminary sketches to photo real rendered images to working drawing packages that all the other professionals we work with can access and use.
I think this is a lot more feasible if most of your team is in house, and you can develop the process within your own work environment, and I think that people like Mithel Stangl and Daniel Tal are getting as close as anybody to accomplishing this.
In my office we contract surveyors that use one software, engineers that use another, we have Vectorworks, and Acad Architect, we have a consultant that does residential design work that uses Softplan. There's SketchUp, Photoshop, on and on.
I tend to agree with Honolulu. It's expecting a lot to think that SketchUp and Layout are going to cover all grounds.
As for me I'll take any and all improvements that the Google team give us, with a little whining thrown in for good measure. But I have said it before, and I'll repeat... I really can't imagine what it would be like working without this tool. -
Hi bjanzen, I too am a advid SU supporter. Please note that I formed my "assumptions"-) in reference to those who endorse SU, and LO v7.xx as a tool for drafting and maintaining "building production drawings".
Its a credit to someone or something, that student architects look to SU as a useful tool. These "someones" should represent it by taking a knowledgeable, experienced, responsible position. I was an "impressionable student" at one time, and bought into wrong postulations because of well meaning "someones":-(. Well, I bought into a lot of good things too:-)
-
Hi All,
This has been a good discussion to follow, I've appreciated everyone's insight and comments.
I'm an architect as well, and it's interesting to look at how technology again is going to change the way we produce drawings (similar to CADD in the 80's).
I think at one level, there needs to be a change in how we think arch drawings need to "look". In some ways, we've continued to hold on to methods from the hand drafting days (e.g dashed lines for above or hidden items, etc)even though we now have the ability to do color transparency, x-ray view, 3D views, 3D section, etc in very quick fashion. I think these methods in many ways can communicate much clearer to a contractor for scope, design intent,resolve detail issues, etc. Take a look at Dennis F's work at insitebuilders.com, or Mortenson Construction as other people pushing the use of SU in very compelling ways.
Guess my thought on this is, I don't think we should try to make SketchUP into everything the bloated BIM software or CADD apps are. Adding additional dimensions (like angle and radius) to Layout, and improving linetypes are great suggestions. But it would also be great for us architects to explore the possibilities in new ways of graphic communication that the software allows us to experiment with.
I believe SU and Layout is going in the right direction, and is already in its present state extremely capable, more than we give it credit for (and this from a $500 software that in some cases rivals the $6000 BIM software I use, that shall remain nameless........)
WB
-
Here's a link to Dennis' blog, if anyone's interested:
-
Another example of this is Atelier Bow Wow.
-
I for one have learned to wait for new standards. As a fresh young Architect "out of the blocks". On my first commission, I design a "new" door jamb. Looked great on paper, even the contractor thought it would work OK. Well you can guess what happened. We failed to account for movement in the material due to humidity, and the detail failed:-( Since we were under construction, and because the fix was easy, the contractor just fixed it. Now I wait for standards to be developed by those with more insight into these things:-)
This doesn't mean that we should not try out new technologies. My office was among the first to do CAD (on a IBM PC with 640k of ram, a 10 mb HD, and CGA graphics):-), but none of that impacted the construction process. Btw, that's a interesting way to present a building section. If I can be sure that the drawing can be maintained through the process of production drawing revisions, I would consider using it in a working drawing. Was it drafted by SU, and LO? Perhaps someday, Cad will go the way the fax went, yielding to email while I was waiting for one that would survive the rigors of the construction environment:-)
UGH!!!! I am sounding like one of those done it all old farts. Time for my last word on this matter.....
-
I think in the case of Atelier Bow Wow they are an Avant Garde Tokyo architectural firm that just likes pushing boundaries. Their book "Graphic Anantomy" is really worth a look, and the approach to a different style of working drawing is very refreshing. Oh and I believe they are hand drawn, but I'll stand to be corrected.
-
hmmm, looks like a cad drawing to me or a whole load of letraset
-
-
@honoluludesktop said:
This doesn't mean that we should not try out new technologies.
I really think that new technologies as currently conceived are holding us back! Please note this:
@unknownuser said:
Stanford's Center for Work, Technology and Organization is, in its words, "the only university-based research center in the United States focused on studying work and the interplay between work, technology, and organization." On one side of the interplay there is technology - singular and strong - and on another, work - diverse and somewhat in awe of its partner. In these circumstances, organization falls to the strongest, with little recognition of the need, for example, "... to learn how to document work practices in a variety of settings more effectively and how one can then design technologies to assist rather than obstruct those practices" (one of the Center's research objectives).
So what are the "documents" we use to buy materials and get them fixed. In reality we use lists of things to do, sketches, markings on built parts and instructions (mostly verbal). That's how buildings get built. If we could push our new found multimedia technology in this direction, think hard about it, you will come to the conclusion we can miss out interpreting orthogonal drawings. Then we won't need Layout - making this post controversially pertinent to this forum and topic.
@honoluludesktop said:
UGH!!!! I am sounding like one of those done it all old farts.
-
One thing for sure, Stanford's Centre for Work, Technology and Organization would not win any prizes for plain English.
Advertisement