Construction & Working Drawings - Discussion
-
njh
I have been using Vectorworks since its very first MiniCad version, but stopped upgrading a VW 12.5 because it is so much easier to draw in SketchUp.
Unlike you though, I was doing full 3D in VW, and although I don't remember the learning curve, it was probably because I started so early with the software (or I'm old and my mind is failing)
Like you though, I am ready to make the jump to Layout, since I already do all my preliminary work in SketchUp, it seems a logical step. I currently still export dxf's back to Vectorworks for the final working drawings compiling.
There are a lot of things that I see as failings with Layout, but I was at baseCamp, and I can assure you that The folks at SketchUp are really listening when it comes to Layout.
It seems at the moment though you have to learn the workarounds, (many discussed in this thread), and accept the shortcomings, to get the job done.
There were a lot of folks at the Layout session, who seemed to want Layout to be nothing more than another Cad program. I think this would be a mistake, as Layout offers so much more in terms of presentation potential.
In my discussions, and my question at the session, was essentially asking if it would be possible for the Layout API to be offered to developers, much like the SketchUp API which has spawned so much Ruby brilliance.
In my opinion, this would allow the SketchUp Layout folks to concentrate on the larger picture, while I am sure that we would see ruby developers taking care of the requests for line weights, and arrow types and other details.
I really can't say if this is being seriously considered or not, but I am hopeful. -
Hi Dale
Thanks for the comments and hopeful speculation about the future of the product. I'm hoping too that Trimble will pick up the ball and run with it to make it an even more useful combined drawing and presentation package.
Like you, I started off with MiniCAD but went to AutoCAD (job change forced it) before returning to Vectorworks at 2010 but in 2D only. Beginning to learn 3D in VW2013 seems a bridge too far...
Neil
-
Hi Neil I've got an Archicad licence. Great piece of software if you do repeat style projects and don't want to do anything that isn't in the box. I'm migrating to SU as I think it is much more focussed as a design tool. Ok it needs development of the many well discussed shortfalls but fingers crossed we should see some great progress soon.
-
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
-
This is my first attempt at a construction drawing for a simple UK lean to extension. I am quite pleased with it but it took a long time to achieve though with practice maybe I can get the time cut down. I find that I get bogged down with the outliner and it takes time to manage my groups. I need to make more use of layers maybe.
I tried to create a hatch pattern rather than using colours to identify the brick and blockwork but it crashed each time I applied it. Not sure why that was.
I cannot decide whether to just model the exteriors in SKP to give the 3D and go back to CAD for the 2D plans or whether to stick with it and try to increase productivity.
-
@arcsurvey said:
This is my first attempt at a construction drawing for a simple UK lean to extension. I am quite pleased with it but it took a long time to achieve though with practice maybe I can get the time cut down. I find that I get bogged down with the outliner and it takes time to manage my groups. I need to make more use of layers maybe.
I tried to create a hatch pattern rather than using colours to identify the brick and blockwork but it crashed each time I applied it. Not sure why that was.
I cannot decide whether to just model the exteriors in SKP to give the 3D and go back to CAD for the 2D plans or whether to stick with it and try to increase productivity.
I'm finding that you do cut the time taken down a lot as you progress. You'll find quicker ways of doing things.
I'd try and stick with the sketchup for the plans as well. I find that clients really respond to the textures etc. of a sketchup drawing, rather than the cold crap look of CAD.
-
@arcsurvey said:
This is my first attempt at a construction drawing for a simple UK lean to extension. I am quite pleased with it but it took a long time to achieve though with practice maybe I can get the time cut down. I find that I get bogged down with the outliner and it takes time to manage my groups. I need to make more use of layers maybe.
I tried to create a hatch pattern rather than using colours to identify the brick and blockwork but it crashed each time I applied it. Not sure why that was.
I cannot decide whether to just model the exteriors in SKP to give the 3D and go back to CAD for the 2D plans or whether to stick with it and try to increase productivity.
Richard, you might check out Rich's YourTube tut, here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rZ9-o0vTAs&hd=1
-
Thank you both for your reply and the hatch plugin looks useful.
I have been creating a section cut slice from the competed model and then adding the detail such as cavity walls, tiles, etc. Is this generally considered the best way to do it?
I have found that creating 2D symbols from CAD blocks works well for doing the floor plan in 2D from the 3D section cut without adding a lot of weight to the model.
I have started my next project and it is going quicker already - I guess it will keep improving.
-
Keep us posted on progress.
-
@rtbuild47 said:
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.
-
@unknownuser said:
@rtbuild47 said:
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.
I also suspect that hatching was a product of the times - plotters and printers that handled lines, and PCs that did the same.
-
@bmike said:
@unknownuser said:
@rtbuild47 said:
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.
I also suspect that hatching was a product of the times - plotters and printers that handled lines, and PCs that did the same.
Actually those plotters and printers were the hand and pencil days. Ouch I'm getting old. I graduated architectural school in 1987, so hand drawing was still the main course, with ACAD just really starting to move in the industry.
-
@unknownuser said:
@bmike said:
@unknownuser said:
@rtbuild47 said:
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.
I also suspect that hatching was a product of the times - plotters and printers that handled lines, and PCs that did the same.
Actually those plotters and printers were the hand and pencil days. Ouch I'm getting old. I graduated architectural school in 1987, so hand drawing was still the main course, with ACAD just really starting to move in the industry.
for sure. i was on the transition period when i dropped out. school was leaning towards a paperless studio for the 3rd year grads, but the first 2 years did a mix of traditional modeling, drawing, 3d, and bullshitting, i mean, critiquing. my prof in school was aghast that i wanted to learn autocad. guess he didn't have to work to put himself through school...
prior to grad school i came from an art school with a renaissance style traditional foundation program - so lots of life drawing - both human figure (i was marginal at it) and from observation - still life, landscape, architecture, etc.
lots of emphasis in design and painting coursework on sketching. i still have alot of my sketchbooks. flip through them every now and again... -
Mike, where did you go to school. Sounds a lot like my school - RISD.
-
@unknownuser said:
Mike, where did you go to school. Sounds a lot like my school - RISD.
Cleveland Institute of Art, BFA Sculpture, but I spent time in ID, Graphics, and lots of time working for carpenters and woodworkers.
Then to Columbia for Grad school in Architecture. Burned out after a year. Too much $$$$ for living in the city and going to school, and lots of folks who didn't seem to care about the art of actually building...
Had a good friend go to RISD for furniture. This would have been in mid 90s. Spent some time there hanging out, fun town. Will be there in 2 weeks visiting and engineer I work with and doing some warranty research on a project I designed a few years ago.
Also know a prof down at RISD via some artists I worked for as an assistant in NYC and a by way of a project that I worked on in Jamestown.
Small world.
-
@unknownuser said:
@rtbuild47 said:
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.
Yeah, but in office work there is such a thing as standardization and efficiency. Hatches developed over time to have the consistent look and are easily identified (basic ones like wood, conc., earth anyway). And, of course it's something when done by hand you need the interns to learn, so it has to be easily defined and copied. It doesn't take an artist.
Nowadays we don't really want the "make-work"-let the computer do it. So eventually someone who has developed some nice detail textures will lead the way forward and set the standard.
-
@pbacot said:
@unknownuser said:
@rtbuild47 said:
I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.artybuild
Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.
Yeah, but in office work there is such a thing as standardization and efficiency. Hatches developed over time to have the consistent look and are easily identified (basic ones like wood, conc., earth anyway). And, of course it's something when done by hand you need the interns to learn, so it has to be easily defined and copied. It doesn't take an artist.
Nowadays we don't really want the "make-work"-let the computer do it. So eventually someone who has developed some nice detail textures will lead the way forward and set the standard.
Man I hope not. I think the beauty of SU textures is they look like real materials. They are not a hatch pattern, and are immediately recognized by all the contractors and laborers. Hatches are a cryptic way to depict materials, that are hopefully going to be gone by the way side. I get a lot of positive feedback on my details, especially from the Spanish speaking work force. In many cases, even the text isn't necessary.....a picture is worth a thousand words. Not sur you can say the same for a hatch pattern.
-
@unknownuser said:
Man I hope not. I think the beauty of SU textures is they look like real materials. They are not a hatch pattern, and are immediately recognized by all the contractors and laborers. Hatches are a cryptic way to depict materials, that are hopefully going to be gone by the way side. I get a lot of positive feedback on my details, especially from the Spanish speaking work force. In many cases, even the text isn't necessary.....a picture is worth a thousand words. Not sur you can say the same for a hatch pattern.
+!!!! on this. Absolutely. At some point our machines will be fast enough and the reproduction quality of prints good and cheap enough to build virtually in the computer with 'real' materials. We are almost there...
I get similar comments when I send off sketches or details, even by using 'simplified' textures and image placement. Makes a whole lot of sense for a foundation contractor to see grey / stone colored materials with steel popping out than some sort of hatch pattern. And I'm not going using as realistic as an approach as Sonder...
-
What do you hope not, Nick? Or you hope it is never standardized?
You mean each of us must create his or her own textures and these will always be recognizable by all, even neophytes?
I was hoping your pattern library would be available ($)
. (Though I am far from doing such details myself, this might get me there sooner). -
@pbacot said:
What do you hope not, Nick? Or you hope it is never standardized?
You mean each of us must create his or her own textures and these will always be recognizable by all, even neophytes?
I was hoping your pattern library would be available ($)
. (Though I am far from doing such details myself, this might get me there sooner).My thought is that a material image (photographic) is more telling than a hatch pattern used to define a given material. I don't think there is a need to standardize images used in defining materials. Concrete can look like concrete in many different images. What I love about SU is the customization allowed by the individual user. We are not bound by standards like this anymore.
Using concrete as an example, just search Google images and you will see hundreds of images of concrete. Most all would clearly be seen as concrete given the context of application to a given foundation model/section/detail. There is no need for a standard pattern any more. I would hate to go back to that, so I really hope that is not something Trimble deems necessary for either SU or LO. I would much rather the focus be placed on getting us even further beyond what has been the industry standard.
Advertisement