Construction & Working Drawings - Discussion
-
Chris,
I was just thinking about this today,
why not an informed "animation" that can show not only how a building is to be built, but one that can be information rich, i.e. click on a component and there is a "nameset" link to it...
with the ability to add comments, input, feedback etc.
a "live building process".
much like warfare, the "plan is out the window as soon as the first bullet is fired, same I find in construction" (all be it a little less so, still there is job site scrambling, particularly with a involved creative owner, and or a tight budget.
aloha
red -
@redinhawaii said:
why not an informed "animation" that can show not only how a building is to be built, but one that can be information rich, i.e. click on a component and there is a "nameset" link to it...
with the ability to add comments, input, feedback etc.Insofar as I understand it, dynamic components provide for some of this. You can add attributes that will be seen in the relevant dialogue, apparently including URLs. I've not had time to even attempt any DC work but it certainly sounds useful.
One thing I am going to be trying in the next few days is making a build animation to show the stages of building the house since it isn't quite the usual sequence.
-
@fionmacool said:
Hello, Sorry I didn't check out this conversation earlier.
I am a SketchUp fanatic, architect and registered Google SketchUp Trainer.
I don't use CAD, but I use SketchUp to do all of my construction drawings. So far, I have carried out a commercial project worth roughly $1m, and a complicated house construction cost €0.5m without using CAD or any other type of software.
Please check out this link to a video showing some of the work I have done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jw-q409XZc
Here is a link to some further images showing my working drawings along with random photos of the built projects: http://picasaweb.google.com/sketchupireland/ViewsionAspireArchitecturePortfolioDrawings02?feat=directlink
We have a Google SketchUp ATC company called viewsion: http://www.viewsion.ie, and we have the world's first advanced training program for SketchUp users that shows how to create the type of drawings illustrated above. (I hope you don't mind the plug. It's the only one I'll submit here.)
Please let us know what you think. We would love to get to the bottom of this debate about SketchUp because we think it is the ultimate future for this amazing software.
Hello Paul,
I'm very very impressed by some of those images of final drawing that you have linked to. Where these created solely in SketchUp? I'm finding layout extremely frustrating/slow/basic??? Also the PDF export seems to create massive 26Mb files from a simple model. The only way I could find to create a (basic) A1 PDF of a model was to export as a jpg, and then print the jpg to a PDF printer I have installed. This got the same 26Mb Outlay PDF file down to 1.5Mb and both PDF files look exactly the same "poor" quality. (see attached PDF file, Hopefully!)
I would love to use SketchUp as my everyday design/draft tool, but at the end of the day it's all about the end product and at present AutoCAD lets me do everything I need. I only ever design in 2D and only do 3D when a client has a fancy for it.
But if all those drawings where created solely in SketchUp I would love to jump ship and learn more of your techniques and tips etc.
Gaz...
-
Hi all,
I have been following this topic with great interest. The more I use LO the more I see potential to produce Detail design drawings.Still no where near the power of Revit but for my purposes where I simply need to produce a set of preliminary drawings that can be reasonably priced, its a godsend. Attached is a PDF of some half complete motel concept plans. Still experimenting with the scrapbook function but things are starting to come together.
Stan
-
[quote="zx10r_Gaz":3l82c2l7]
@unknownuser said:How do you manage to do everything in 2D? I can't imagine how one can efficiently visualise complex systems in only 2 dimensions. Having a 3D model helps me to find places where parts simply don't match, or can't possibly fit, or merely look awful. The part I really don't like about 2D only is that you can end up lying to yourself about the suitability of a design. Lying to a client is one thing but lying to yourself...
How do you manage to do everything in 2D? I can't imagine how one can efficiently visualise complex systems in only 2 dimensions. Having a 3D model helps me to find places where parts simply don't match, or can't possibly fit, or merely look awful. The part I really don't like about 2D only is that you can end up lying to yourself about the suitability of a design. Lying to a client is one thing but lying to yourself.... that's foolish.
-
In the final analysis, Architecture is an Art. It transcends building, and speaks to our humanity. A design tool is just that, a tool. The great works of Architecture are not a function of our tools, but of human genius.
That we all approach the solution in different ways, is part of that genius. And, the variety of expressions is probably affected by the myriad of tools that we utilize.
It may be a mistake to expect any single software to do everyting well for everyone.
-
@tim said:
@zx10r_gaz said:
@unknownuser said:
How do you manage to do everything in 2D? I can't imagine how one can efficiently visualise complex systems in only 2 dimensions. Having a 3D model helps me to find places where parts simply don't match, or can't possibly fit, or merely look awful. The part I really don't like about 2D only is that you can end up lying to yourself about the suitability of a design. Lying to a client is one thing but lying to yourself.... that's foolish.
Hello Tim,
You shouldn't be to concerned, I manage just fine in 2D. I am "Old School" and in my "pre CAD" days everything I done was done on a drawing board with good old pencil & paper. A lot of the modern wonders of this world where conceived pre computers never mind pre 3D CAD...
I can design and draught a "finished and presented" new build or extension a lot quicker in 2D than I can with SketchUp when you take into consideration the amount of detailing, sections and annotations I do. SketchUp or rather Layout is merely trying to emulate the finished result you or I get from AutoCAD. At the end of the day I have to supply Plan views, elevations views and sections, and at present SketchUp "or Layout" does not supply the speed and quality of detailing for me to use it as a serious replacement to AutoCAD. I only wish it did. $$$$
but I won't give up on it juHow do you manage to do everything in 2D? I can't imagine how one can efficiently visualise complex systems in only 2 dimensions. Having a 3D model helps me to find places where parts simply don't match, or can't possibly fit, or merely look awful. The part I really don't like about 2D only is that you can end up lying to yourself about the suitability of a design. Lying to a client is one thing but lying to yourself.... that's foolish.
Hello Tim,
You shouldn't be to concerned, I manage just fine in 2D. I am "Old School" and in my "pre CAD" days everything I done was done on a drawing board with good old pencil & paper. A lot of the modern wonders of this world where conceived pre computers never mind pre 3D CAD...
I can design and draught a "finished and presented" new build or extension a lot quicker in 2D than I can with SketchUp when you take into consideration the amount of detailing, sections and annotations I do. SketchUp or rather Layout is merely trying to emulate the finished result you or I get from AutoCAD. At the end of the day I have to supply Plan views, elevations views and sections, and at present SketchUp "or Layout" does not supply the speed and quality of detailing for me to use it as a serious replacement to AutoCAD. I only wish it did. $$$$
but I won't give up on it just yet...Gaz...
-
@honoluludesktop said:
In the final analysis, Architecture is an Art. It transcends building, and speaks to our humanity. A design tool is just that, a tool. The great works of Architecture are not a function of our tools, but of human genius.
That we all approach the solution in different ways, is part of that genius. And, the variety of expressions is probably affected by the myriad of tools that we utilize.
It may be a mistake to expect any single software to do everyting well for everyone.
Vitruvius writes that architecture is neither theory, nor practice, but both. It is not Art alone; it has practicality and responsibility attached. Human invention resorts to a variety of inspirations to produce good buildings and good architecture- both of which are based on sound principles. Genius is far too subjective to be attributed to the success of architecture; just as looking to our tools alone may be too objective.
I agree, however, that a single software package is the answer. Not because a single software package can not address all issues, but because it can not address all personalities and temperaments- not to be confused with genius. -
Hi Troy, I see that I failed to distinguish between architecture, and Architecture
However, you did remind me that there are works of Architecture without Architects, thus not the result of genius:-)
-
yes, i can't escape Architecture
-
"a single software is the answer"
this is why it seems to me that Sketchup / Layout are the best of both options. in that they address a "single software" application as the "basic" tool, with the adaptive "genius" of the individuals to contribute to shaping "supportive adjunctive tools", depending upon what the individual designer needs, (I will shy away from the Architecture / architecture discussion)The SK/LO "solutions" of 3d modeling vs 2d drafting is kind of like when the chordless drill appeared on the job site. It was a helpful, and handy innovation on an existing tool, the drill, I remember when the "makita chordless drill ' was the defacto standard, but now there are all kinds suppliers and all kinds of attachments for that drill, and or the drill motor, and or the drill battery, to where there is a whole range of tool options, and a huge range of tasks can be accomplished.
This is where I wish Google would "embrace" the market needs and fund/ encourage/ support the full potential of innovative 3rd party initiatives....
dream on I guess. -
@zx10r_gaz said:
You shouldn't be to concerned, I manage just fine in 2D. I am "Old School" and in my "pre CAD" days everything I done was done on a drawing board with good old pencil & paper. A lot of the modern wonders of this world where conceived pre computers never mind pre 3D CAD...
Well, whatever works for you is what you should do. I was 'Old School' too in my youth; I did many courses on constructive geometry and how to work out the shortest distance between two tunnels in a mine from an assortment of projections etc. It was one of the reasons I became interested in CAD in the first place! It was certainly a major reason I moved into CAD research in the early 1980s. I designed and built several motorcycle frames with paper and pencil. I sure as hell wouldn't do it that way again!
@zx10r_gaz said:
I can design and draught a "finished and presented" new build or extension a lot quicker in 2D than I can with SketchUp when you take into consideration the amount of detailing, sections and annotations I do. SketchUp or rather Layout is merely trying to emulate the finished result you or I get from AutoCAD. At the end of the day I have to supply Plan views, elevations views and sections, and at present SketchUp "or Layout" does not supply the speed and quality of detailing for me to use it as a serious replacement to AutoCAD. I only wish it did. $$$$
but I won't give up on it just yet...Gaz...
As I say above - what works for you in your business works for you. Changing would be an interruption and you'd have to be very convinced that changing would pay off before you got hungry. So far I find using SU to build a good model is a valuable process since it makes sure I'm not deceiving myself about the geometry. Once you have a decent model it is really quite easy and fast to make all sorts of detail and section and plan views in the combination of SU and LO.
My latest example; taking all the SIP units that make up the roof of the house and laying them all flat to provide a set of dimensioned drawings to the manufacturer. Total time taken maybe 5 minutes. Similarly a quick check to find the area of all the drywall in order to ask a contractor for a guesstimate - less time than it took for him to drink his coffee. Can AutoCAD do it ? Probably, but I've never really used it and am never likely to since it would require using windows and paying a lot of money. Could you do it with pencil and paper? Of course - if one had an office full of young associate architects being paid peanuts as they strive for partnership.
-
Okay, if lack of activity is a statement of inability for SU to be a full CD program, what do people suggest as one has a SU Model, where do you go with that to finish the CD's, construction notes, schedules etc. Do you go to a full blown program like vector works, archicad, Revit, Autocad?
I have become "entranced" by the 3d capabilities, but the building department wants only orthographic drawings, the job site, I feel, would like both, in color too! Changes happen and the interior gets refined and defined, I still want to be able to render...so need the 3d model...
which other "finishing" (document drafting) software works best with the "live" SU model? -
Hi I have the same problem with Construction Drawings.
A work around has been discribed in the a 3D basecamp video by Mitchel Stangl.
One problem he uses Autocad to produse the drawings for output.This works great for elevations and some palns.
One problem when using 3dclip to set up plan sections at different levels and building sections not all surfaces that is cut does not display the cut surface.If ther is a sulution to this I would apreciate the help.
-
If you want to try the common SU to 2d autocad route, you don't really need autocad. Doublecad XT and Progecad Smart are free and both have a gui which is very similar to Autocad. Doublecad will actually open an SU model. But whether you use Autocad, Progecad, Doublecad, Vectorworks, Revit whatever..,none of them do it for you, so you do need to learn the 2d drawing,dimensioning and annotating functionality of the program.
If you don't want to learn these fairly simple cad skills which, in my experience are generally expected as an absolute minimum in the workplace, then stick with Layout. I like Layout a lot but I can't wait for Google to add the functions that Layout needs to compete with the paperspace tools that cad programs have. -
@unknownuser said:
The part I really don't like about 2D only is that you can end up lying to yourself about the suitability of a design. Lying to a client is one thing but lying to yourself.... that's foolish
I agree. The problem with working solely in 2d on a drawing board or in Autocad is that you only really see the design as a series of lines - outlines. So you are only really looking at the edges of the form, not the surfaces. But in reality it is the surfaces that are most apparent. I heard an architect say recently that she didn't like the way that cad users always say "I can look at a building and see it as a wireframe", because it suggests that we are not as consciously concerned with the surfaces that we are creating. I don't necessarily agree with her but I see her point.
-
@linea said:
I like Layout a lot but I can't wait for Google to add the functions that Layout needs to compete with the paperspace tools that cad programs have.
I'd be interested to learn what those functions are; mostly I'm doing ok with Layout but having never used any of those other tools I don't know what I might be missing.
-
I like the thread, thanks for ideas. I've been trying to convince my firm to work more with 3d, mainly SKP. We design theatres (AV, light, rigging, seats, etc.) I'm the office hero for sightline studies, but can't get them to use Sketchup much past that. It's all ACAD.
The main problem for me in LO is labeling and with SKP it's interoperability with ACAD. If I try to set things up in LO, we can't match office standards with labeling, dimension, etc. It has to be an EXACT height, dim style, lineweight, etc. so it's useless in project documents unless it meets those standards. I.E., it can't look different than ACAD docs.
If I try to switch to ACAD for labelling, then 3D DWG's views won't plot with proper lineweights in ACAD. (For some reason, Vector printing only works in wireframe and rastering looks HORRIBLE. I even worked with ACAD support on this.) If I export with 2D DWG;s and import them to ACAD, then it all turns to loose linework on layer 0 and no group or layer info. Very hard to edit later if need be and tedious to reset layers.
I've tried a million workarounds, but nothing quite fits (and this excludes the fact that no one else in the office really use 3d and they need to edit drawings too.) Anyone else with similar problems? Wish I could stay in ACAD too, but LO just isn't there. Any ideas appreciated, thanks for the great discussions.
PS Anyone know why the ADO exporter rezooms scene and messes up views when exporting DWG's? I've searched but can't find any help.
-
Mus257
You can sort out some of your problems when it comes to layers. If you set up a layering convention is SU, when you export to dwg, the layers should be preserved when you open the dwg in Autocad. So as you build your SU model, if you adhere to a very tidy layering convention, once you are into cad it is is easy to change the lineweights. Well, it is easy but rather time consuming I must admit. If you are having problems with this in AutoCAD, try using Doublecad and just import the native SU file.
-
@unknownuser said:
You can sort out some of your problems when it comes to layers.
The big problem lies in exporting to DWG. I lose the layer info if I do a 2D export. If I do a 3D export, then I can't plot 3D hidden as vector lines, only raster. Is there any way around that?
Thanks for the help.
Advertisement