SU with "Drafting" software.
-
I originally thought that I could keep all my work in one platform, limit the learning curve.
I think that the software (SU) is great for modeling, and falls short in creating "linked" working drawings, i.e. put a door in a wall and it automatically goes into a door schedule.
Somewhere, at some time during the "design process" it seems far more efficient to go from SU to another program.
I looked into VW a few years ago, and then talked to an Architect friend of mine, and he was very happy with VW, used SU a little, but was not happy with VW renderings.
Your drawings are great, and a motivation to keep looking for a practical solution.
When, within the "modeling" do you move from SU to VW?
I like a lot of the features in LO, i.e. the, what VW calls "viewports".
For me in SU/LO, the "outliner" on a Mac has some significant weaknesses. The text, notes issue is challenging at best, i.e. in LO or SU.
But I think as well that if someone, or a concerted group effort, alot of issues to support the "one software solution" could be achieved.
I just hate the thought of yet another "learning curve" in the already tortuous road ahead to get "productive" working drawing solutions out of my computer!
thanks for the info and files, I will keep moving forward
aloha
red -
yes, another learning curve seems worth avouding. But, I use CAD since 1988 and have grown used to the fact that every now and then a new system or application comes along that can not be ignored. The older you get the more you hate to learn new things. That's usually why after a certain age you can no longer be on the job.
But VW is worth it since the features surely make it easier and much faster to produce CAD drawings of good quality. We use SU and VW simultaniously from the start.
We have tried Layout but it was utterly useless for professional use. I do not want to go there again. Google is a search engine company and not a developer of pro-CAD applacations in the field of the building industry. Soon SU will as well be a thing of the past. Others have picked up where Google just consumed SU. -
I love the SU / VW combo as well.
The beauty about both pieces of software is that you only need to know about 10 icons and you can go pretty far with that. (Never touched the BIM crap in vectorworks)
This enables you to focus more on the subject than on your drawing tool, which is a blessing.Unfortunately I need to use Revit now. Not too bad, but not as easy and intuitive as the magic combo described above.
Let's hope Sketchup won't die a slow death as you describe Frv...but when you look at Googles attitude towards SU development, they need to take action or it will become truth...
-
Dear All,
Would someone care to describe their workflow with SU/VectorWorks, with perhaps a few images to show how an SU model is imported into VectorWorks and then processed? This would be helpful to those who might be considering going that route.
Thanks,
Bob -
I use SU with MicroGDS. I've used MicroGDS for many years and have never seen anything better for a fully integrated professional CAD application. For presentation, nothing can beat MicroGDS and the multi-user capability is second to none. It has a fully integrated 3D modelling and rendering capability too, supports SU file import and, like Sketchup, the Piranesi EPIX file format.
MicroGDS even has many SU-like modelling tools, such as Face Move (which is very similar to Push/Pull.)
Check out http://www.informatix.co.uk/MicroGDS.
MicroGDS is also much cheaper than some of the more well known competition.
-
I suspect that what really matters is which software you first commit to. Once having done so, everything thereafter accommodates your work flow. I began with a 3d vector CAD system, and still begin the design with it. The functional diagram is more easily (for me) to be laid out as a 2d drawing. I loft, and block the plan, then port to SU for visualization. Revisions are done to blocks in the CAD system, and imported to SU as components facilitating design revision. Only portions of the model that are more easier done in SU are ported to CAD as blocks. Because the construction documents are done by the CAD system, I am able to maintain the work flow best in this manner.
For those who began their CAD experiences with a modeler like SU, I suspect another work flow will be preferred. Any competent vector system is OK for that. If there were anything I would look for, it is the ability to customize your CAD platform. Like SU any CAD system will benefit from this flexibility. If you don't program, then a wide user base is useful to belong to. Another concern is the ability of the software to "stay in business", since it is your intention to be around for a reasonable time. Its very, very hard to change systems. Been there, done that, and is one of the reasons I stick with MS:-) (how do you draw a X fingers smiley?-)
-
I think you guys might consider this:
Builders (I mean the people charged with buying the materials and/or installing them, not those who merely package up subcontracts) - these builders do not use drawings directly for construction; they use construction drawings and specs only for interpretation into simple instructions - buy this, put it there; think about this in relation to search technology not drafting software. Wherever there is a need for interpretation muddle and error await with glee. You now have the opportunity to think of a better system to cut them out by design.
Apologises to any lawyers reading this.
-
Hi Chris,
I take it that you are referring to a BIM approach.
For bigger projects in large arch firms I can see your point. We use Revit for 2D/BIM and documenting. In a lot of phases, using Revit really is beneficiary, but at some phases, Revit expects you to specify building elements too soon...
But beware, most builders don't use Revit, they stick to Autocad.I know a lot of architects will not agree, but a workflow containing Vectorworks (2D plan), Sketchup (3D), Excel (spreadsheets for quantities) and Word (descriptive documenting) works quite good on a lot of projects throughout all project stages.
I think the software used also depends on the scale of your arch firm.
The bigger ones might prefer a documenting 'system' like Revit, while smaller ones could benefit from a more down to earth (and cheaper) approach. -
Chris,
I totally agree, it just that I have to also deal with the "building department"
i.e. get a permit.
they had the audacity to say to me on this last permit...we do not want any perspectives on the plans...
I said "Hey, there is a copy required to be on the jobsite, so is this copy not intended to also communicate with the builder how the structure is to be built?"...
the construction docs take all the time, are going to be changed anyway, and are high cost, limited use...
just cannot deal with a retro building department.
aloha
red -
@kwistenbiebel said:
I take it that you are referring to a BIM approach.
I was trying not to be as closetted as that. I just have the feeling that full construction documents is seen as some panacea, when, I for one, just see them as something to reverse-engineer back to lists of what is required and where - i.e. the same data the designer supplied to make the model or drawings.
So why shouldn't a builder just receive a digital array of required building components complete with xyz, rotations and selected colours and whatnot. The technology should be such that the builder, or anyone else for that matter, can turn the array into any format deemed suitable (including SU of course). Arrays or lists are the stuff of search technology; that is the point I wanted to make and that that's the place to start.
Chris
edit:reverse not re - engineer
-
I think this is really good sound advice. Pretty much any competent vector system is ok, but some are better (All beer is good, but some beer is better!)
Back in the day I used to use generic cadd 6, which for 2D drafting was amazing (so amazing that autodesk bought it and killed it) and 3D Studio release 2
Eventually I had to move from these dos systems, and for 2D drafting used Visual Cadd (still available from http://www.tritools.com) which was kind of cadd6 for windows. I looked at heaps of 2 and 3D software (I hate vectorworks
)
and never really found anything 3D I was happy with until rhino, which I have used now since its pre-release beta days, and now in its V5 beta cycle. Since V4 this program has had great 2D drafting tools (so much so that it has been years now since I have used visual cadd), and its 3D toolset is just incredible.
For me, rhino is the all in one program, and it goes from strength to strength. The user group are fantastic, Mcneel is an amazing company and all in all I have never been happier with a piece of software - which is good, since I use it to make my living, and as noted below, it is very hard to change systems...
I would definetly give it a shot, even if you start by just using it for 2D drafting and documentation of your sketchup models.
Rhino is very affordable, will import and export sketchup (v6) models; you can customise it with keyboard shortcuts you are familiar with, and it has an excellent dwg import / export, which is continuously being updated - something that is really important if you have to exchange data with autocad.
Download an evaluation from http://www.rhino3D.com - (it never expires, just stops saving after 25 saves) and run through a couple of the tutorials...
If you are on a mac, there is a mac beta of rhino, which you can download and use for free while they go through the beta process; likewise, if you buy V4 for windows, you can download and use V5 as it goes through the beta cycle - both mac and windows V5 betas are currently more stable than a lot of other companies final release software...cheers
rabbit@honoluludesktop said:
I suspect that what really matters is which software you first commit to. Once having done so, everything thereafter accommodates your work flow. I began with a 3d vector CAD system, and still begin the design with it. The functional diagram is more easily (for me) to be laid out as a 2d drawing. I loft, and block the plan, then port to SU for visualization. Revisions are done to blocks in the CAD system, and imported to SU as components facilitating design revision. Only portions of the model that are more easier done in SU are ported to CAD as blocks. Because the construction documents are done by the CAD system, I am able to maintain the work flow best in this manner.
For those who began their CAD experiences with a modeler like SU, I suspect another work flow will be preferred. Any competent vector system is OK for that. If there were anything I would look for, it is the ability to customize your CAD platform. Like SU any CAD system will benefit from this flexibility. If you don't program, then a wide user base is useful to belong to. Another concern is the ability of the software to "stay in business", since it is your intention to be around for a reasonable time. Its very, very hard to change systems. Been there, done that, and is one of the reasons I stick with MS:-) (how do you draw a X fingers smiley?-)
-
Rabbit,
Thanks for the suggestion,
I will give it a try, if they accept my app.
aloha
red
Advertisement