Layout: Love it or Loathe it?
-
I work in Film and Television. I have used Maya, Solidworks, Rhino, Sketchup, Autocad and a few other packages. I've abandoned all but Rhino, SU and AC. In my TV work we have to design sets, put out drawings, and get them built in days, and sometimes hours. For modeling, nothing is as fast as SU. Period! However, in my workflow, it is much faster for me to section through the SU model and export to AC than to use Layout. Layout just does not have the tools.
I will use Layout when I just have a small element to complete, and lots of time. Granted, I'm sporadically using Layout and by no means well versed. But even just moving around in Layout on my computer it is much slower than AC. I recently worked with someone who only worked in Layout and was considered fast with the program. I was doing the more complicated pieces, and my SU>AC export method was at least 2 twice as fast if not more.
Perhaps as I use Layout more I may discover methods that help me pick up the pace, but I'm still skeptical.
-
I fall in the love/hate category, tho' as I get used to the quirks of LO, I'm leaning towards the love.
As Dave R and others emphasize, it is vital to organize the model as much as possible before importing and then to pay particular attention to Layout layers.
The ability to lock or hide dimensions, viewports etc. can reduce a lot of the frustration.
-
@otb designworks said:
Hi Marc! I know you know of the list I speak...
Oh yes, I know the list. We've made progress on a few items, but sadly not many.
Is there any chance you can come to our next 3d basecamp event? I think we should be having one sometime next spring (this is not an official announcement). The LayOut team loves to see how people use the product and where the pain points are. We've talked about having a booth where people can come to share their feedback.
In response to some earlier questions in this thread, LayOut does have its own dedicated team, and it's by far the best team I've worked with in 14 years in the software industry. Even so, I'm always astounded at how long it takes to get anything implemented/fixed/etc in the product. For instance I've spent nearly three months this year just updating our code to keep pace with SDK changes on OS X, which is frustrating when I'd rather be working on features & improvements.
-
Thanks Marc...
Is it a separate beast than SU code wise? there is no hope of ruby integration? Or any other opensource plugin coding?
-
@mikebelluckf said:
Hi Skupusers,
I will be presenting at the 3D Basecamp UK at RIBA on the 9th of September 2015 - the last slot of the day (some coffee will be consumed).
My presentation is about using both Sketchup & Layout in pitch & presentation context.
Some reaction - brief, monosyllabic, or gastronomic about this posts would be interesting to help shape my final words. LMK if you are happy to have attributations.
Me, I love em all......
Mike Bell
mike@mikebell.euMike, did you perhaps have any record your presentation? Youtbue link would be appreciated...
-
@juju said:
Mike, did you perhaps have any record your presentation?
unfortunately Mike was unable to attend due to last minute personal issues...
john -
I've done a few live sketchup modeling on youtube Mike... Maybe we could just make some of those for them in Layout? and talk through it on places where we'd like new tools?
-
@calypsoart said:
I work in Film and Television. I have used Maya, Solidworks, Rhino, Sketchup, Autocad and a few other packages. I've abandoned all but Rhino, SU and AC. In my TV work we have to design sets, put out drawings, and get them built in days, and sometimes hours. For modeling, nothing is as fast as SU. Period! However, in my workflow, it is much faster for me to section through the SU model and export to AC than to use Layout. Layout just does not have the tools.
I will use Layout when I just have a small element to complete, and lots of time. Granted, I'm sporadically using Layout and by no means well versed. But even just moving around in Layout on my computer it is much slower than AC. I recently worked with someone who only worked in Layout and was considered fast with the program. I was doing the more complicated pieces, and my SU>AC export method was at least 2 twice as fast if not more.
Perhaps as I use Layout more I may discover methods that help me pick up the pace, but I'm still skeptical.
+1 on what you say. here in our architecture practice in France we have tried all sorts of workflows & always come back to the export 2d > dwg method.
Using LO is SOOOOO slow even on our best machines with super graphics card etc... it's so painful I was tempted to smoke again after 18years !
I've been doing 3d and 2d since 1988 and am still waiting for the join-up between easy intuitive 3d (sketchup, or, back in the day ModelShop) and fast update-able 2d at a reasonable price for a small outfit.. (no, I do not want BIM bam boom as it standardizes thought processes & is actually there to further push industrialisation of building....
Anyway, I'm sure the Trimble guys will get there at some point... -
Hi Marc, great to hear from you!
I'm sure it was as hard for you to write, "We've made progress on a few items, but sadly not many." as it was for me to read them.
I do greatly appreciate your candor, however. I know it is easy for me to whine from the outside, with no insight to what you guys are going through to work on the code, and I appreciate being able to at least talk to someone on the development team.
I, of course, would love to make it to a Basecamp. Whether I can actually pull it off, or not, is maybe another question.
Any chance you guys were interested in maybe doing a video conference? I'd be happy to be a beta tester, too, if you were interested in that?
-
As with any program, you have to understand its strengths and weaknesses to get the most out of performance. Once you clearly set the parameters of how LO works with SU, it is very fast. I used ACAD for over 20 years and I can produce a far more detailed set of documents with LO in about 1/3 the time I could with ACAD. The main place people have issues is when they try to vector render a scene that shows an entire model. Once you establish a good layering system that allows you to control the scenes you can easily determine which ones to Vector render opposed to raster or hybrid or combinations of the two which is what I do.
-
@paddyclown said:
here in our architecture practice in France we have tried all sorts of workflows & always come back to the export 2d > dwg method.
For what it's worth that method is obsolete imho.
What Sketchup can give us is new methods of communicating our ideas that are simply not available in CAD.
For me it's a waste of time, investing in a model with material textures and 3d info, shadows, rendering capabilities and 3d data, dynamic components and possibly reports, and then go back to the old flat way of showing things.
2D plans, sections and elevations are a way of communicating that is still very useful nowadays.
However the amount of detail you can put into a sketchup model makes it way better at communicating with people that surround construction industry that it's simply not very clever to throw it all away by exporting to flat cad.
Hence I use layout hybrid mode most of the time.
It's heavy on the PC, yes, but with the money you save by not adhering to CAD you can eventually buy a good PC. With mine Layout flies in a nvidia Titan X and i75200k 32Gb total 3000€ (that of course is also a rendering beast).
Sketchup+Layout+Render (In my case Thea) can show things in ways cad will never be able to.
The only thing holding this combo back is Layout. It's the only thing that makes a direct connection to sketchup to create excellent 2D output but:
- It has a workflow that is very unpolished and;
- CAD export is still lacking and unfortunatelly this is a must if you want to share your work with an industry that has long standardized it's format to dwg/dxf. CAD is, as I stated at start, obsolete/dying slowly, BIM it's too technical so dead from the start, SKP and LO are the way to go...
So my main wish for 2016 is that Marc Durant endures that MacOS fight and solves those two things:
- Workflow (every command should be working like Sketchup commands, every text should work like word and every style should be work like CSS style sheets)
- CAD export should be flawless...
-
So JQL are you doing 3d details? I've found occasions where structures were better elucidated in 3d. But I still find 2d detail sections easy to show more detail than I could put into SU. There you can add elements such as hidden lines and objects not in the same plane to give a complete picture of a building feature. Representations of lumber, insulation etc. It's certainly not in MY SU model, so not lost in translation. But I don't speak of SU to 2d. Some things never make to SU.
-
We would LOVE to have more beta testers using LayOut, and that goes for anyone in this thread. PM me with your full name and email address, and I'll pass your info along to the beta administrators.
-
@pbacot said:
So JQL are you doing 3d details? I've found occasions where structures were better elucidated in 3d. But I still find 2d detail sections easy to show more detail than I could put into SU. There you can add elements such as hidden lines and objects not in the same plane to give a complete picture of a building feature. Representations of lumber, insulation etc. It's certainly not in MY SU model, so not lost in translation. But I don't speak of SU to 2d. Some things never make to SU.
Actually not much of 3d construction details.
But I show renders, model is in the construction site, textures are everywhere and everything is pretty clear.
2D detail sections on "section cut faces" with some raster hatches are much faster to create and I don't usually repeat much details from project to project apart from typical window frames.
However things like Kitchens, bathrooms, closets, difficult corners, specially built furniture like outside benches, reception desks, lifts, etc... wich I used to detail in 2d, are really really clear with 3D.
No more mistakes in construction site and some side details drawn in 2d are more than enough for building most stuff.
Again, the only thing I bang my head into, is hatching export to cad, wich would be cool if Skalp would translate but that's only possible inside skalp sections wich depend on a perfectly built model. I don't have that!
My models are a void shell with 2d details and a solid volume for structure inside. don't want Skalp cleanning up all the details I use in section cut faces when it auto updates a section...
The real thing about 3D details is that they take too much time to build. If you have a 3d model/render of the whole building, the builder immediatelly understands what we want to build, and some simple 2D details are more than enough, imho.
I'd love LO more if there was no CAD standard to adhere to. I have to consider stop using hatches so I can export solid colors with CAD fills (I guess I'm still tied to my CAD past!)
-
Excellent explained, João...!
-
Thanks JQL!
I tend to slip away from standards when I can and when I feel I can make a cleaner, clearer document my own way, Have used solid fills for years before SU came along.
-
Thanks Kim,
Forgot the most important thing. Sketchup as conceptual tool is exactly the same as sketchup as construction documentation tool. It works exactly the same way and you never have to change a thing except evolving your ideas and adding detail. LO in perpetually part of that process... CAD breaks it.
A sketchup model evolves. From the existing condition to the finished project, it's work in progress. This sketchup model starts as a very raw boxy/triangulated shape or a prexisting building (wich all my projects tend to be nowadays.)
A sketchup model is for our office a perpetual iteraction between ideas, sharing, discussion, testing, ligthing and perfect material representation (with Thea as you know Kim). It's a permanent record of whatever goes through the mind of everyone envolved in the project.
And as ideas evolve the 3d evolves, it's more than drawing or a physical model. It's more like sculpting. LO documents this sculpting in every stage. It's always in sync and if you use it from the start you know it's this "in sync" with project/model evolution that really matters.
In sync with project concept.
In sync with the model discussed with client.
In sync with project when consultants enter the arena.
In sync with permits stage.
In sync with more consultants and price estimates.
In sync with construction documents and final reports.
In sync with construction itself.
In sync with finished building.As soon as you export to CAD you break sync. As long as you keep working with LO sync is going on. That is what matters!
And this Sketchup model is virtually the best thing we architects can strive for, but most people think CAD is the real deal. They are imho wrong. CAD is the accessory here as it cannot register as many things as a Sketchup model does... it fails at everything but acomplish a standard 2d output.
And as I said before, that standard 2D output is something of the past, nowadays we can have so much more...
A sketchup model at a very early stage has already so much information to it that it opens up amazing possibilities. This is the opposite from a CAD drawing. LO can be set at initial stage and document that initial model in a day. Of course you can export it to CAD but why would you even trouble with that until you the permit stage or construction docs stage?
Nowadays I don't even bother with 2D drawings at a conceptual stage. A model and some Presto Renders and people get their jaws on the table.
A sketchup model at the later stage is a faithful representation of the built project. No 2D asset has that ability. LO can easily enough create the closest 2D possible to that 3D model.
The natural thing is to take 2D out of 3D but do it as seamless as possible and with as much info as possible.
LO is great at doing that. It just sucks working with it...
-
@pbacot said:
Thanks JQL!
I tend to slip away from standards when I can and when I feel I can make a cleaner, clearer document my own way, Have used solid fills for years before SU came along.
Clever of you!
I've worked with a very strict classical architect myself for 5 years, very well known, portuguese, pritzker winner (there are only two of those here in PT). So, since I started my own office, I'm still trying to get rid of the standards he brainwashed in me...
-
@jql said:
Thanks Kim,
Forgot the most important thing. Sketchup as conceptual tool is exactly the same as sketchup as construction documentation tool. It works exactly the same way and you never have to change a thing except evolving your ideas and adding detail. LO in perpetually part of that process... CAD breaks it.
A sketchup model evolves. From the existing condition to the finished project, it's work in progress. This sketchup model starts as a very raw boxy/triangulated shape or a prexisting building (wich all my projects tend to be nowadays.)
A sketchup model is for our office a perpetual iteraction between ideas, sharing, discussion, testing, ligthing and perfect material representation (with Thea as you know Kim). It's a permanent record of whatever goes through the mind of everyone envolved in the project.
And as ideas evolve the 3d evolves, it's more than drawing or a physical model. It's more like sculpting. LO documents this sculpting in every stage. It's always in sync and if you use it from the start you know it's this "in sync" with project/model evolution that really matters.
In sync with project concept.
In sync with the model discussed with client.
In sync with project when consultants enter the arena.
In sync with permits stage.
In sync with more consultants and price estimates.
In sync with construction documents and final reports.
In sync with construction itself.
In sync with finished building.As soon as you export to CAD you break sync. As long as you keep working with LO sync is going on. That is what matters!
And this Sketchup model is virtually the best thing we architects can strive for, but most people think CAD is the real deal. They are imho wrong. CAD is the accessory here as it cannot register as many things as a Sketchup model does... it fails at everything but acomplish a standard 2d output.
And as I said before, that standard 2D output is something of the past, nowadays we can have so much more...
A sketchup model at a very early stage has already so much information to it that it opens up amazing possibilities. This is the opposite from a CAD drawing. LO can be set at initial stage and document that initial model in a day. Of course you can export it to CAD but why would you even trouble with that until you the permit stage or construction docs stage?
Nowadays I don't even bother with 2D drawings at a conceptual stage. A model and some Presto Renders and people get their jaws on the table.
A sketchup model at the later stage is a faithful representation of the built project. No 2D asset has that ability. LO can easily enough create the closest 2D possible to that 3D model.
The natural thing is to take 2D out of 3D but do it as seamless as possible and with as much info as possible.
LO is great at doing that. It just sucks working with it...
Excellent post!
-
Advertisement