Architectural layer name conventions

Deanby7

I'm looking for an architectural layer naming convention to use, rather than re-invent the wheel I wondered if anyone has any suggestions for ones that work for mainly residential type work?

TIG

Look at this:
http://forums.sketchup.com/t/creating-hierarchies-in-outliner/23132/11

There are basically two conventions - one is based on short English names [AIA/USA]... and then the UK/EU based CiSfB - which is a numerical code you need to learn...

However, I recommend simplicity for simple projects - if the layer contains walls, then name it WALL !
If it's on the ground floor it's say WALL-0000, then the first floor WALL-0001 etc - if you are in the USA, then you need to up the numbers... because your 'ground' floor is the 'first' floor

Rich O Brien

I've always used the BEM convention, which is not related to architecture, as it serves me well.

Block__Element--Modifier

Wall__Window--48x44

Or...

Paving__Slab--300sq

Or, for non archi work...

Body__Arm--Extended

Container__Hinge--Open

sonder

I think those naming conventions simply do not apply to Sketchup and Layout. Simplicity is key and the primary purpose of Layering in SU and LO is visibility. We actually discuss this at length in the new book where there is a heirarchy of layering by:

Overall level (first floor, 2nd floor, etc)
Objects (walls, floors, windows, doors etc)
Special elements (line work, calculations etc)

It works really well for both setting up scenes and modeling while minimizing the number of layers required. My projects typically have less than 20 layers.

JQL

I agree with Sonder. There is no standard as visibility is what you need to setup.

I have the following:

Layer for the exterior of the building;
Layer for the interior of the building;
Layer for structure and eventually layers for building's infrastructure;
Then I have 1 layer for Terrain and 1 Layer for contour lines wich I can use for hidding contours on elevations;
1 Layer for surrounding buildings that I sometimes split up in north, south, east and west surrounding building's layers so I can hide buildings I don't want to see on certain elevations.
Most importantly I have one layer per section wich is visible only on the respective section's scenes;
I also have 1 layer for room areas wich is a group with faces that are easily created from section groups and is inside those groups.
Finally I have a layer for render proxies and other render elements that I don't want to show on construction docs.

Wich layers are visible or not in sketchup are usually setup on scenes and I can have up to 3 scenes per section:

Scene with section cut face and whole model (countours or surroundings can be hidden). Goes to a base viewport in Layout;
Scene with only section cut face visible. In Layout this is juxtaposed with the previous to control lineweight, thickness, hatching and details;
Scene with only section cut face and area. In Layout this one gets over the other two with and it's only visible when using Layout label tool to get room areas, then I hide it and forget it as Layout updates areas even when this viewport is hidden.

pbacot

I think ideas people are offering here are more valuable than the "conventions" that may have been established by institutions or schools. Whether for SU or otherwise, I've looked at some of these and found them onerous for most work. If you HAD to collaborate with a number of work groups and EVERYONE was using the system... it would still be a PITA with so many layers. I felt some of these protocols were sort of nerdy and would only create more work. They are likely based on systems made up when CAD was just being developed and so less relevant now.

utiler

@pbacot said:

I think ideas people are offering here are more valuable than the "conventions" that may have been established by institutions or schools. Whether for SU or otherwise, I've looked at some of these and found them onerous for most work. If you HAD to collaborate with a number of work groups and EVERYONE was using the system... it would still be a PITA with so many layers. I felt some of these protocols were sort of nerdy and would only create more work. They are likely based on systems made up when CAD was just being developed and so less relevant now.

Well said.

juju

@jql said:

Finally I have a layer for render proxies and other render elements that I don't want to show on construction docs.

JQL, two questions:

Which proxy plugin are you using?
Which renderer are you using?

kaas

I use the sfb code with a small description for easy lookup in the Outliner. For instance:
16 foundations
22 inner wall
23 floor
43 floor finish
etc

Within some of these named groups I create sub-groups that need to be separate but I don't bother to add a number. For instance:
31 entrance door

door
frame
etc

Some objects might end up on a custom layer to easily switch between high and low polycount.
It all works fine for me as it creates a nice hierarchy and I can quickly find what I need.

TIG

@kaas said:

I use the sfb code with a small description for easy lookup in the Outliner. For instance:
16 foundations
22 inner wall
23 floor
43 floor finish
etc

Within some of these named groups I create sub-groups that need to be separate but I don't bother to add a number. For instance:
31 entrance door

door

frame
etc

Some objects might end up on a custom layer to easily switch between high and low polycount.
It all works fine for me as it creates a nice hierarchy and I can quickly find what I need.

In a similar way my old office use a mix of CiSfb and AIA...
Your:
22 inner wall
becomes
22-WALL-INTL-0001 [first floor]
and so on...
This satisfies clients who want CiSfB based layering as as optional 'description' is also allowed anyway...

As Nick Sonder says...
KISS

If all you need is twenty or so layers then just use layer names that make sense to you [and any recipients]...

JQL

@juju said:

@jql said:

Finally I have a layer for render proxies and other render elements that I don't want to show on construction docs.

JQL, two questions:

Which proxy plugin are you using?

Which renderer are you using?

I'm using Thea render and though it is able to generate simplified proxy geometry, I use simple boxes and roughly model them to look like the original model when I need to.

I don't do that for most vegetation, boxes are enough, however major trees that need placement I do convert to billboards. Tig's skm tools help on that.

Deanby7

What book are you referring to Sonder?

Deanby7

JQL How do you split geometry across inside and outside layers of the building? Are external doors and windows residing on both internal and external layers?

sonder

@deanby7 said:

What book are you referring to Sonder?

The book Matt Donley and I wrote. It just went on sale.

JQL

@deanby7 said:

JQL How do you split geometry across inside and outside layers of the building? Are external doors and windows residing on both internal and external layers?

Exactly!

I have an hole cutting component in the inside of the building glued to each wall face, and I have another hole cutting component in the façade.

As you got there so fast I'll tell you the following:

Imagine you have a VERY big master plan to develop. And you're also developing the interior of the each house and each floor of the buildings.

How would you manage this extraordinary project?

Masterplan is composed of several buildings and a plot of land. Each volume is a component only composed of outer wall faces and windows (exactly what I have).
Then you export each component into a folder;
You then import a that component into a new file;
You now got a link between the components of both files;
In the new file you start working on the individual building and you create a new component, detached from the first, with only the interior and the oppenings.

What you get is at least 3 files;

Masterplan with terrain and buildings and no interior;
Exterior volume components inside a folder that you don't edit;
Individual building file with building and interior and no terrain.

You can further split this building file and send bathrooms and kitchens to your collaborators, structure to your consultants... etc.

What about that? You can do any project inside sketchup after all!

NOTE: Let me tell you another thing related to your initiall question - You can do all 3D modelling only in layer 0...

Deanby7

Sonder - Sketchup to Layout?

srx

Very good information from JQL. This is the same thing I came to. Sketchup in its simplicity CAN be a serious BIM tool when user know the structure and use components as containers of information, both in and out of the main model. So one make the structure in Outliner. Layers follows that structure to filter even more what is seen on screen.

juju

@deanby7 said:

Sonder - Sketchup to Layout?

SketchUp to LayOut for Architecture

sonder

@jql said:

@deanby7 said:

JQL How do you split geometry across inside and outside layers of the building? Are external doors and windows residing on both internal and external layers?

Exactly!

I have an hole cutting component in the inside of the building glued to each wall face, and I have another hole cutting component in the façade.

As you got there so fast I'll tell you the following:

Imagine you have a VERY big master plan to develop. And you're also developing the interior of the each house and each floor of the buildings.

How would you manage this extraordinary project?

Masterplan is composed of several buildings and a plot of land. Each volume is a component only composed of outer wall faces and windows (exactly what I have).

Then you export each component into a folder;

You then import a that component into a new file;

You now got a link between the components of both files;

In the new file you start working on the individual building and you create a new component, detached from the first, with only the interior and the oppenings.

What you get is at least 3 files;

Masterplan with terrain and buildings and no interior;

Exterior volume components inside a folder that you don't edit;

Individual building file with building and interior and no terrain.

You can further split this building file and send bathrooms and kitchens to your collaborators, structure to your consultants... etc.

What about that? You can do any project inside sketchup after all!

NOTE: Let me tell you another thing related to your initiall question - You can do all 3D modelling only in layer 0...

Excellent JQL! This is exactly what I describe in the book.....the use of multiple models conceived from a master model. You can have a full office working on a single project. It's fast, efficient and much more manageable than trying to create everything from a single model.

JQL

@unknownuser said:

Excellent JQL! This is exactly what I describe in the book.....the use of multiple models conceived from a master model. You can have a full office working on a single project. It's fast, efficient and much more manageable than trying to create everything from a single model.

Thanks Sonder, I'm sorry I didn't read your book, but I've watched your old videos and if that's still the process wich you describe in the book, then there are some differences between our workflows though their fundaments are the same.

For instance:

I never copy paste linework into Layout as that isn't dynamically updateable;
I prefer to setup more scenes, wich makes my setups heavier in what regards to scene management than yours;
I don't split the models as much as you do but probably that's due to the fact that my projects are usually smaller than yours;
I don't rely on 3D details, I always setup classic 2D details inside the 3D model and iterate between 2D detail and 3D model permanently (probably because this is how I'm also trained to think);
I use my 2D sections and layers to control scene depth visibility, and I've seen you using fog;
I don't use scrapbooks as they don't keep layer structure nor insertion point I rather have everything floating around a standard layout page, or copy paste from other models.

Otherwise, I wish I had your book when I started, but then again I've watched the videos and you made me believe... And if I had the book back then, I'd probably be working exactly as you do, and that wouldn't be cool would it?