Offline
[quote="Jeff Hammond"][offtopic]
here's some time lapse footage of the stuff i posted on page9 being built..
Completely off off off topic (the phrase suggests an off Broadway play with a lot of nudity) - do you just build the skateboard parks or do you skate also?
I think I may be the norm - I'm not sure whether to click Yes or No on the survey. I upgraded to 2013 but generally use 8 (I even reset my preferences so the default program to open SketchUp files is 8). 2013 works fine for me but I only use LO on a limited basis and not with any of the new features (I haven't tried the hatch command yet) so the only difference between using 2013 vs 8 is having to remember to save down to V8 for other people who need to access my files. Easier just to work in 8 and not have to remember to do that.
This was new to me -
Sometimes I go from SketchUp back into AutoCAD. Generally when I'm doing that I'm exporting a 2D with no perspective (Front, Side, etc.). The result on the AutoCAD side is of course more lines than I'd like. A floor line that is interrupted by a door and other architectural features in SketchUp, etc. becomes many many line segments in AutoCAD.
Enter Overkill. I use Overkill before exporting from AutoCAD to SketchUp to get rid of overlapping and hidden lines and to clean up the drawing in general before crossing over. My 'duh' moment today was to use Overkill in the other direction, to simplify the drawing after it's been imported from SketchUp. It works pretty well, not perfect but a substantial improvement.
Hopefully this will be useful to someone else on the forum -
@krism said:
Kridious,
The ability to import vector files would be number one on my wish list for Layout.
Kris
Me too!
@mariocha said:
Dimensions in SU works very well, and are linked to model, so they follows modifications.
I would half agree.
The attached image is from Rhino which has some advantages over SketchUp - the layout size of dimensions is controllable unlike in SketchUp where the dimension size goes wonky when you zoom in and out, and you can set standard dimension styles - slash vs ticks, font, etc.
But Rhino has some downsides also - notice that it's a raster image. I can output the geometry with clean vector lines from Rhino but if I want to have dimensions I'm stuck with raster.
Ultimately, I'm disappointed that the layout functions of SketchUp continue under the reign of Trimble to be a separate program. Much as I can see why that makes sense for someone building the elaborate pages that are often shown in these threads, for someone like myself who is being hammered left and right by clients and fabricators for rapid fire changes throughout the day, it's not very useful. Ideally I want to be able to work right in the modeling field with full annotations - dimensions, text, leaders, etc in 3D.
I think you're being confused by the wonkiness of Layout's dimensions. Looking at the three 12'-3" dimensions at the right side of the pyramid, you would reasonably assume (from experience with other programs) that you're seeing 2 linear dimensions (the horizontal dimension at the top and the vertical dimension at the center of the pyramid) and one aligned dimension (the dimension that is somewhat parallel with the angled corner).
But you're not - all three dimensions are aligned dimensions but because Layout's dimensions do not align parallel with the geometry or the leader points (or anything else as far as I can tell), they often appear to be linear when they're not.
The moral of this story - Layout dimensions work in 2D views but not in perspective views.
@thomthom said:
I work at an architectural office and I also would like to be able to have sub-layers or a way of grouping layers. Ditto for materials.
+1
This is a big item for me also. I'm in retail display but there are several repeating projects we do that cross the line into architecture. On one of these I end up with approx. 50 - 60 layers. I break them up into semi logical structures - Floor, Floor Base, Floor Trim, etc. But no matter how well organized I am, I'm always looking at a 50 item list - PITA. And the Materials panel is even worse.
I'm not a programmer but this would seem to me not that big a task to improve?
@jason_maranto said:
Personally, this is one of the selling points for me of form.z -- you have all the snapping power of SketchUp (and then some) but you can disable any and/or all of them whenever you need/want to... incredibly precise and powerful: http://www.formz.com/manuals/formz7/!SSL!/WebHelp/01090_Snapping.html
You won't typically find that type of snapping in any SubD modeler. SubD is a different way of thinking about making things (than standard surface modeling)... so it requires some adjustment.
Best,
Jason.
Generally I agree. The relation of the sub-d 'cage' to the visible screen representation complicates the issue of snapping. But the LWCad plugin for LightWave proves that the problem isn't insurmountable. What I wish modo would offer is snapping to the cage geometry as an option for the purposes of architectural modeling (where it's needed) and the ability to turn it off for organic modeling (where it's generally not needed). You can do this in MODO but only with an unnecessary number of clicks and adjustments. I'd like to be able to turn it on or off with one click like I can in Rhino.
Sorry BTW that this exchange is far off topic.
@jason_maranto said:
I came to the exact same conclusions, and Modo is exactly where I've been once I ran out of caring about SketchUp 9 -- and I'm not regretting the decision at all.
Best,
Jason.
What I want in MODO is SketchUp like snapping. Snapping in MODO is ridiculous and I'm stunned that Luxology hasn't done anything about it - even though long, angry threads regularly appear on the forum about this issue.
This is my biggest frustration with Layout and it's why I'm learning other programs. I honestly don't understand what some posters in the "How can one honestly ... " thread mean when they say dimensions are associative in Layout. As far as I can tell, dimensions do not align with their leader points in Layout, they do not align with the plane of the geometry they're associated with, and they do not update if you alter the model in SketchUp - therefore they're not associative.
I do wonder if this function (aligning dimensions with geometry in perspective view) is a difficult task for programmers because other programs also lack this feature. Rhino has full annotation capabilities but only in model space. Once you initiate their Make2D command to create a 2D vector line version of your model, the dimensions disappear. Rhino is miles ahead of SketchUp/Layout in annotations overall but SketchUp/Layout has vector and vector / raster hybrid output in perspective views - which is unique to the programs I use. If they could solve the problem described in this thread they would very quickly become my layout program of choice and I imagine others would agree.
@solo said:
Just dawned on me watching both threads that maybe it is me, I want stuff that most folk do not, like better UV tools, more poly's, quads, etc.
Gonna have to give Blender a real go.
Or MODO
A complete rewrite of the dimensions function so the dimension size remains constant relative to the object plus an option for annotative scaling.
Without having to go into a separate program (LO).
frv -
Maybe it's because I was a builder before I moved to architectural / product visualization that I find the photo real to be the least engaging of the tasks I'm responsible for.
The attached image is a rendered SketchUp model for a series of large industrial fans (well over 10' tall - think Steam Punk without the fancy dials and knobs) that were the backdrop for a clothing display.
The client loved it, I got paid, but I dreaded having to do more of them. There's something so mechanical, almost deadening about the process of imitating a photograph. It's rather like being an artist and knowing before you start what a painting is going to look like when it's finished.
Now, the technical drawings, the CNC files, the whole graphical structure that converts these images into something that the shop can build - that I don't find deadening.
@krisidious said:
As far as the Raster I was speaking of specifically and only page 12. I thought it was so pixilated because you had mentioned earlier that rhino or visualarq didn't have 3D vector lines.
I think that comment may have come from me and therefore I should clarify a bit: Rhino is a very complex program and has a number of different output functions (wireframe, shaded, rendered, technical, pen, etc.) most of which you can customize - rather like Styles in SketchUp. Some of the output variations are vector based. The point that I was making is that there is not an easy way to output vector perspective with dimensions. If you do a 4 viewport layout (top, side, detail, perspective) you'll see the dimensions in the orthographic views but not in the perspective view. There are workarounds for this but they are just that - workarounds, which I translate as: "obstacles to a clean, fast workflow."
Furthermore, Rhino lacks the hybrid mode of vector / raster that Layout has (which is the one function that frequently brings me back to LO). Rhino, like many of the big 3D modeling applications, is putting a lot of effort into a built in rendering engine that works inside of the main application. But going forward, I find myself having less and less interest in photo realistic work. The various graphical styles that are present in this thread are, to my eye, more interesting and more useful to the complex process of transitioning from design to fabrication than any attempt to mimic photography could be. Fortunately, Rhino is also investing a lot of energy in expanding the NPR possibilities in the program.
@richard said:
One thing I'm noting about a lot of drawings people are showing, does nobody like white space!
The one biggest tip in presenting anything is: MAKE WHITE SPACE YOUR FRIEND
I've gone in the exact opposite direction. I pack every available inch of my drawings because the field I'm in (retail design and display) tends to generate endless revisions and I got tired of emptying my recycle bin multiple times during the day. No doubt, you're right - a well balanced page with ample breathing room around the visual elements is the most pleasing to the eye but my drawings tend to be looking more and more like mosaics with every component tightly fitted to one another. Thank god for custom viewport shapes in AutoCAD
@unknownuser said:
BTW, Associative dimensions are in LO. Not sure why folks thing they are not.
I must be doing something wrong then. If I dimension something in LO and then have to alter the model in SketchUp, the dimensions don't update in LO when I update the reference.
@unknownuser said:
My problem with traditional CAD systems is the output. You just cannot simply get the same level of graphic output as easily as you can with the SU / LO process.
Impressive drawing. But I need to produce the same kind of drawings with associative dimensions (not just tags and text) so I'm looking to Rhino. As I'm learning Rhino I have found one feature that LO has that Rhino doesn't - vector and vector/raster hybrid. Rhino can't do a perspective drawing in vector - in other words the only output option in perspective with dimensions (and textures) is raster.
VisualArq and Grasshopper are plugins to Rhino.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
@frv said:
On the second page you see a list of the drawings. Apart from the graphical appereance its also a worksheet (like Excell) were you fill in the details. With one mouseclick you can update as many sheets for sheetnumbers, dates names etc.
Francois
I think that's the sticking point. I don't see anything in these drawings that couldn't be done in LO - but at what expense of time and effort? I'm looking at Rhino / VisualArq / Grasshopper because my drawings are becoming more and more data centric in a way that I don't see LO handling very well. It's rare that I get to put out a sheet that doesn't have at least a couple of tables and charts - very often referencing information that will be revised and updated as the project progresses. Revising every sheet individually would be a massive time sink in LO and the meager improvements that Trimble introduced in this new version don't give me a lot of hope going forward.
I work in SketchUp every day but it is, by it's very nature, kind of a one level modeler. I'm starting a project for one of my clients that involves many, many sizes of essentially identical objects. I'm planning on doing a crash course in Grasshopper with the hope that I'll be able to automate the process somewhat - draw one object and then use Grasshopper to alter the overall size as new versions are requested. And input data in such a manner that all linked drawings in the series will also be updated.
Nonetheless, great looking work in this thread from all participants. Exactly what a thread should be - a learning, eye opening and, yes, a somewhat intimidating, experience.