[REQ] Documentation Plugin

Krisidious

Layout is great... Well, it's better than Autocad... And that's saying something. That being said... It kinda sucks. It has some major issues that don't seem to be getting addressed to the extent that they need to be. I don't know much about the back side of Layout, I don't know if it's based off the same coding of SU, (I doubt it somehow...) Or if it's some other system that was adopted along the line. I just know it's not precise enough and is not user friendly enough to do the job efficiently and thoroughly. I find more and more that some of my dimensioning and line work is "close enough" and not exact. Snaps seem to be temperamental as to when they will and won't snap. Yada yada yada. I have whole posts of my issues with layout and wishes for its future.

I appreciate having Layout, I'm going to keep using it until something else impresses me and saves me time.

Why doesn't Layout have an Open Source offering like SketchUp? They are missing out on a massive R&D movement that would fuel many years of viability. Just look at what Ruby has done for SketchUp. It took a simple sketching program and made it this versatile tool we love today.

But, if Trimble isn't going to open source some section of Layout then why can't a plugin or group of plugins be created to document SU models? Why can't Sketchup make something better?

Features needed for construction documents.

Scaled exports.
template/title block data control.
template/title block design control
BIM information display for export.
line weight control.
line type control.
???

Features needed for construction documents that exist already.

dimensions already exist inside SU.
multiple text types exists.
scenes already exist.
text leader exists.
hatching exists.
layers already exists.
orthographic/oblique and vanishing point views already exists.
dwg/pdf and other exports already exists.
raster/vector exports already exists.
screen overlays already exists.
???

After making these lists I'm wondering why we aren't already doing this? Are there people making Con/Docs with SU?

What could sketchup do as far as creating construction documents stand alone?

What can it not do?

What about the movement to live, construction documents in 3D that aren't printed but explored by construction workers and contractors... Could this be another area in which SU could out perform Layout?

otb designworks

I wholeheartedly agree about the discouraging rate of meaningful development of Layout.

I make thousands of pages of docs with Layout and, while it is better than any alternatives I have cone across, it is definitely not a top tier pro software, imho.

I wrote up a slew of posts a while back that suggested many substantive changes that would make all the difference in my day to day workload. And, for a short while, members of the development team were actively responding to my suggestions and even intimating that some of them were going to get fast tracked.

And now, maybe 1 1/2 years later, how many of these have occurred? Exactly none. Very discouraging.

And, for what it's worth, the changes to the leader text tool are horrible and I hate hate hate it's operation now. It truly is a crappy tool that takes an inordinate amount of time fussing with.

And the lack of ability to place dimensions on either side of the dimension lines (as works beautifully in SU) with a right click or keyboard shortcut wasted so much time over the course of a few years that it borders on the ridiculous.

And, for goodness sake, Layout just takes too darned many mouse clicks to do anything. The act of placing a dimension, moving the text to the end of the dimension line, edit the text, and then move on to the next takes something like 6-7 mouse clicks and an escape key click to boot. do that 200 times a day and there are hours wasted over the course of a week.

And that layout forgets what is active if you switch to another software and then come back is infuriating and again causes a myriad of unnecessary mouse clicks.

And, as you mentioned, the lack of a Ruby pipeline really holds the whole thing back. Imagine SU without plugins and I imagine a SU I couldn't use as my main software.

I could, and have, go on and on about this, but I know my words are completely wasted as nothing substantive will ever come from them. Do a search for OTB posts concerning LO if you care about my many many frustrations and appeals for improvement that didn't fall on deaf ears but obviously fell on ears incapable of actually doing anything about anything.

Makes you wonder what the development team is doing? Is it one guy sitting in a cubicle throwing darts at the wall? Come on Trimble; throw a bone to the Pro users!!!

Krisidious

I've read them Chuck... And made a few myself. Can't agree more on the mouse clicks... I'm constantly clicking and undoing and redoing. Way too many clicks with no precise controls.

JQL

Kris,

I would have one more option on the list:

"I would use a Doc plugin IF it was better than LO."

Let's face it and say that LO is not good, but Sketchup is so damn good that it compensates for LO.

What I mean is we don't have another software to export 2d drawing sets "directly" from a 3d model so we are stuck in LO. That is why, even if it works terribly bad, it's way better than CAD as a change in a SKP file is immediately reflected in LO's 2d output.

Where it nails it:

1 - SU output never looked better than with LO with extremely nice looking pdf exports..

2 - Interactivity between model and 2D on the fly (reload times could be better but have improved tremendously)

Where it fails:

1 - User UI is the least streamlined I've seen.

Everything implies 5 times more clicks than it should as pointed out. (It seems it's dealing with clicks as those people that type in the keyboard 1 letter per second);
2Additional problem with clicks 1 click for selecting, 2 clicks for editing, but sometimes, drag click for moving, scaling, rotating, inference finding is done with click and drag too but then move is done with drag.
This leads to mistakes everywhere as you double click instead of dragging, drag instead of doubleclicking, click on the wrong object when zooming too far, loose workflow speed when zooming to close... The whole click and drag and double click and drag edit is totally prone for errors and a waste of time.
SU, is so simple, every LO user uses SU, why not replicate it entirely?

2 - Command methodology sucks:

Drawing and modifying stuff is not fast enough. When SU is so simple, every LO user uses SU, why not replicate it entirely?

3 - Dimensioning tools look good and we are able to do what required but at the expense of too much work.

There are not pro enough with many features lacking wich are standard in other software. Multiline dimensions, continuous dimensions, better text placement features, auto text repositioning when not enough space.

4 - Leader tools look good but, as pointed out, are very hard to draft right;

Auto text tags are not professional enough
There is no methodology to draw typical architectural info that should be easy to get from a 3d model (for example face gradients in percentage or decimal value, floor heights and building features heights,...)
Areas are almost impossible to get from model unless you take particular care for how you model or how you create section cut faces...´
It would be easily circumvented if you could get an area from a LO shape and scale it's value to the model scale. (area from LO's polyline with model scale)

5 - lines with special styles must be drawn or copy pasted from SU loosing all interactivity with model.

Can't control linestyles from model view;
This sucks as linetypes are a must for arch drawings and if you change model you have to redraw everything (that's why we hate cad for) for example above plan dashed lines...

6 - Texts are slow to write and hard to setup. Every software is working with some sort of css stylesheet as word.

7 - Layer management is too simple and poorly implemented:

It's difficult to change manage object´s layers and SU layers should be exposed inside LO so they could be exported to CAD if needed.

8 - Importing stuff into LO is limited:

Images and SU and copy paste some excel data/ rtf data is not enough.
pdf, dwg, dxf, full doc, full xls, ppt, ods, odt, odp, svg

9 - Exporting is even more limited:

dwg export is messy at best and either you have a very simple model or you endup with an export wich will take days to cleanup
I wouldn't know where to start here...

10 - Printing options are very limited though printing output looks very good.

What's strange is that I ditched CAD for Layout and I still didn't regret it only because Skalp doesn't fit my workflow.

pbacot

JQL. Trying to decipher the meaning of your last statement...

The documentation items that exist in Sketchup are too limited and hard to work with. Don't look good in general.

Also in Layout things like dimensions and leader text are better, but the above still applies. So much easier to transfer images into CAD and add annotation there. Never liked the choices of style in LO. Also in CAD it is so much easier to standardize and change (copy and save) object styles.

How would linework (basically line weights and dashed lines) be integrated to the model in a smart way?. Perhaps if a line is drawn in LO between two SU entities it could adjust along with the model, but couldn't survive more advance revisions.

I think the choice has been made that documentation is via LO. Why should Trimble change course now? And there's too much to do to make SU output a viable documentation alternative.

Hatch still hasn't been fully addressed. Also the output in LO is crippled by a system that creates massive sized files if you want a quality image.

otb designworks

I re-save every pdf created by Layout to manage the huge file sizes.

I open the PDF in Acrobat and save as an Optimized PDF. Takes a 35meg file and turns it into 1 or 2 with zero noticeable changes to the document.

Just another small time waster that compounds into a pretty painful process. If I were to guess, I probably waste ~65% of my time in Layout.

Another annoyance? Trying to move a viewport and all layout entities, including "smart" leader text. Nothing like trying to get a cursor tip just right on a leader text end point so it doesn't stay in the same place as everything else moves. So then you get to escape if you miss and then re-select everything and try it again. And throw in having to zoom in to get the click right and then having to zoom out to see where you are trying to move it without losing the correctness of the click. Madness...

Krisidious

I use my Adobe PDF Printer or PDF995 to print digital copies. good files sizes and quality. Much quicker too.

pbacot

I'm trying to fix the pdfs with Mac software and it's not working that well. I guess I'd have to try to use Acrobat though I hate the SW.

JQL

@pbacot said:

JQL. Trying to decipher the meaning of your last statement...

Yes that was criptic. Had to read it 3 times myself!

I will explain and then try to understand how that could all fit in one sentence:

I don't model solids for my architectural projects
I model all visible details that interest me both to study space, both to document it;
I also draw technical detail drawings inside Sketchup using section cut faces.
If I'd draw solids for all the layers inside a wall plus structure and other consulting engineers models, I'd go crazy.
Skalp needs everything modeled to perfection to work correctly;
Skalp get's rid of sections it draws very easily so I'd never draw inside a Skalp section.
Hence I don't use Skalp.

But CAD export from LO is a pain. So I should use Skalp for That. But I can't with my current workflow.

However if I'd use Skalp I would ditch Layout for CAD again:

I'd draw details back in CAD (it would be harder to keep model in sync and that is a fundamental thing for me):
I'd ditch section cut faces (but the ease wich I can detail on them is incredible.)
I'd have very nice dwg's that all people would feel confortable with but I'd loose all the confort I feel inside Sketchup.

But that is me! My workflow is not unique but it's not common also. Most people love scalp and the ability it has to export to CAD.

So Layout's greatest contender is really the Skalp+CAD killer combo.

As that doesn't work for me. I can only turn to layout.

Does that make sense now?

sfto1

The LO concept is fabulous.

Dimensions and annotations are underwhelming. I have in the past asked on this forum if LO users were satisfied with LO dimension features. I think only one person except myself felt dimensioning was unsatisfactory in LO. This thread gives me hope that maybe some of you forum power users might get noticed by the Trimble team and a dialogue for real documentation tools can move forward.

I simply cannot transition any meaningful condoc work to LO. I would like to, but for the level of detail that my work needs, LO is too time consuming. I am still very disappointed with LO dimension and annotation features.

JQL

@sfto1 said:

I simply cannot transition any meaningful condoc work to LO. I would like to, but for the level of detail that my work needs, LO is too time consuming. I am still very disappointed with LO dimension and annotation features.

Well I can and I have a lot of detail on my work too. The question is that working with Sketchup compensates largely the encumbrance that dimensioning and annotating brings me in LO.

Considering dimensioning, pagination and annotation are only at most 5% of the time invested in a project of mine and that from all the time invested. Maybe 15% max time is in Layout, and that if I didn't have LO I'd have to spend 20-40% of my time working with CAD, I'd say that I'm perfectly happy with the very difficult to work with LO.

After all it's taking me the at the worst scenario the same amount of time I'd have with CAD, in the best scenario I'm working half the time in LO I would have to work on CAD, so I guess I still find useful exchanging CAD for LO.

The question is that working with layout itself isn't rewarding and that is bad user experience.

The pdf and printed results are also excellent (graphically it's way better than CAD) but dwg export might be one of the worse downfals.

I'll keep working with it but it's always the worse part of my job...

otb designworks

I concur with JQL. LO is the best solution for my workflow, but it is, for sure, the worst part of my job, too...

srx

Considering all said, the best thing would be to clone AutoCAD (LT) 2D UI in LO. Basic thing at least. Maybe AutoCAD plugin? In the end, a few decades gone in improving them trough the use. There is no better 2D drafting tool from where to start. Especially when everybody know to use it. That is why there is so much AutoCAD clones out there. Why not making LO one of them? ...I tried a few of the clones though and the main problem was the robustness and stability of the engine in big drawings...so that is the value of the original.

Krisidious

I do miss the simplicity and infinite precision of autocad sometimes.

JQL

@srx said:

Considering all said, the best thing would be to clone AutoCAD (LT) 2D UI in LO. Basic thing at least. Maybe AutoCAD plugin? In the end, a few decades gone in improving them trough the use. There is no better 2D drafting tool from where to start. Especially when everybody know to use it. That is why there is so much AutoCAD clones out there. Why not making LO one of them? ...I tried a few of the clones though and the main problem was the robustness and stability of the engine in big drawings...so that is the value of the original.

NAY to this one... sorry.

The drafting tools I need are the ones available in Sketchup cloned into Layout and working like Sketchup ditching the way they work in Layout. No more, no less.

line, rectangle, rotated rectangle, circle, all arcs and pie, polygon, freehand work great in Sketchup and also nicely on LO but they don't break each other that sucks as I hate the knife and Glue tools;
Move, Rotate, Offset and scale should behave like Sketchup (please forget about grips and that horrible gizmo) use shortcuts/icons and forget about drag clicking too;
I do not need solid fills for shapes as we currently do, what I need is face finding as in Sketchup (this is where Sketchup shines if you're 2D drafting with it and CAD sucks. I simply design my 2D stuff in Sketchup and only have a CAD clone to clean CAD files I create from LO and CAD files I need to import into Sketchup.)
Components (Groups are there already)

What I would clone from CAD but keep styled like LO would be dimensions, texts, tables and layer management (on/off, isolate, select from object, change object to current layer, send to layer, etc...) this could be done on context menu without a problem.

I think LO leaders might eventually get there someday so they shouldn't be cloned right yet... I'll wait to see what happens.

Text styling and paragraph writing should change to any software standard.

Areas from LO shapes would be key for us to have a working tool for areas. Being able to hide some of the areas but still use these area's data in a table would be excellent to create area tables to show along floor plans data and the ability to export this kind of tables to excel/ods would be great.

Excel/ODS tables should cohexist with a Sketchup Generate Report and imported cleanly and simply, updating as the file updates. We should be able to introduce data we get from model into any xls/ods file embedded in LO file and it would be updated in the original file.

We should also be able to retrieve and export any data from a LO file into an excel/ods for creating stuff like an index page, that areas table, dimensions of windows tables, whatever we wish...

pbacot

jQL The fills are very useful. no reason for LO to be exactly like SU IMO. it's a 2d graphic SW not a surface modeler. As it is the drawing tools allow real curves and curve control. Wouldn't want to loose that. if you want segmental drawing as in SU, you can always draw in SU and put it in LO.

the gizmo is useless, and the way resizing works is weird. I could see some functions might be nicer if they just followed SU.

Many ideas to make documentation easier-many that overlap. I have no need to see LO look or act like AutoCAD. Just some more adult CAD / illustration tools. The answer may be one for all: add ruby open source capability.

JQL

@pbacot said:

jQL The fills are very useful.

Fills or faces work the same way graphically speaking. I prefer the face workflow.

@pbacot said:

As it is the drawing tools allow real curves and curve control.

That is true, but I suppose that for finding faces curves could be used too.

@pbacot said:

I have no need to see LO look or act like AutoCAD. Just some more adult CAD / illustration tools.

Agreed, but with good workflow wich currently isn't what LO offers. Specially with repetitive tasks LO workflow is pretty bad, making us repeat countless clicks and dragclicking the mouse around!

Krisidious

What's your definition of real curves? All I see is segmented lines...

I like fill better than faces. faces do strange things when I copy paste into layout and I can't trust them... Always doing strange stuff.

pbacot

@krisidious said:

What's your definition of real curves? All I see is segmented lines...

Nothing technical. After all in LO there is little information attached to the objects we draw. Only, if I draw an arc or draw a curve with the pencil tool grips, it looks smooth at any zoom level (at least to my eyes). It behaves similar to other illustration SW. I notice that shapes like arcs and rectangles don't retain their character after you draw them. An object drawn with the arc tool just becomes another bezier object.

(For layout and control of a drawing, it would be great to have real (and enduring) circles and arcs, which we don't have in either SU or LO)

Oh and in anticipation of further comments, I know circles are an abstraction (or maybe geometry is reality and we're the abstraction).

JQL

@krisidious said:

What's your definition of real curves? All I see is segmented lines...

I like fill better than faces. faces do strange things when I copy paste into layout and I can't trust them... Always doing strange stuff.

Of course I don't mean faces that misbehave but faces like Sketchup's how can you not like those? They do all the same things Layout ~~faces~~ (EDIT: fills)do!