Nicely explained.

I've tried many ways with many different apps to achieve this result. Displacement mapping from dems, lofting nurbs curves, using basic mesh tecniques, specialised terrain from contour software, etc.

I have to say, the SU sandbox method has to be the most simple and direct. Some mesh specialists will complain that the mesh which sandbox tools generates is scruffy, but hey, if you really care about that, you could export the mesh to blender and retopo a fresh one.

The stamp and drape tools are cool.

Yeah, adding scenes to client SU files is good too. And maybe showing them how to switch shadows on and off, and move the sun around

Nice comments, both.

@unknownuser said:

Architectural Design side have to be more vocal and make our concerns known.

And while we are waiting for change, we can just go enjoying the ever increasing (in quality and variety) range of user-made plugins by which Su continues to develop

I do it if I think the client has good enough computer skills. I would recommend the viewer except for the fact that it offers no access to layers. I set the models up so that the client can turn off the roof layer and the upper storeys (if there are any).

Some clients really like it. I send them a page showing how to zoom, orbit, pan and how to turn layers on and off. Mostly I don't encourage editing of the model. I have tried it with one or two clients, but mostly it's too hard for people...especially when it comes to groups and components. One client did quite a good job of rearranging the furniture. Even changing colours is not so easy for a beginner, again if groups are involved.

Yeah, I will keep doing it if the situation is right. Some people get a real kick out of being able to navigate through their model. And it gives them a great opportunity to quietly visualize changes they might want to make.

I have to strongly agree with the "use vector data option". I just think you will have a smoother more satisfying workflow that way. Especially seeing that you need to do this quite a lot. If you are developing a system let it be a good one!

There are few options around for converting pdf to dxf,

http://www.shareup.com/PDF_2_DXF-download-24214.html
for an amzing $49,with a free demo. Does a perfectly good job.

Others for around $180:

http://www.autodwg.com/pdf-to-dwg-converter/Buynow.htm
who also offer a one off conversion service for $10

http://www.aidecad.com/pdf-to-dxf-converter.html?gclid=CPONp5mZo5gCFdEvpAod7QiImw
with a free demo version. Does a good job

(for not much more you could but MoI a primo modeling app which also opens pdfs and has a SU exporter)

Then you will end up with proper vector data which you can measure, scale, edit, whatever in sketchup.

Of course, there will be one or two teething problems...there usually are with data type conversions...give it a go.

It's surely not the tool that counts, but the skill of the user.

Who would I employ? Probably no-one. But if I did...a master of some inexpensive (or, god forbid, free) software or someone inexperienced (or worse, inept yet proud) in the most expensive?

@unknownuser said:

Does your above mentioned dxf file arrive as a 3d entity when you use the version 12 export, when exported in plan view? Do you have to export using an isometric view?

Yes, always as a 3d entity, independent of view.

@unknownuser said:

although I first thought that having each wall for instance as an individual component a pain,

Once I have the walls on their own layer, I usaully explode them all and reform them all into one new group, leaving the windows in their own individual groups/components. Same with the entities that form the roof...explode em and reform into a single group

Yes, that is the problem Chris. I wonder whether the component origin/axis is set up by the 3ds exporter or by the SU importer?

One workaround may be a simple script that explodes and remakes each component one at a time. C'mon Thom, there's a challenge for you

@honoluludesktop said:

What software are you using to generate your dxf with?

I use Cycas

No problem, thanks Chris 3ds and skp attached.

honoluludesktop, the original objects are not xrefs or blocks, but walls or 3d cuboids made in my cad app.

steve

newnham demo.skp

newnham .zip

I have grown to prefer 3ds as a transport format between my cad software and SU.

Having said that, the way SU receives a dxf file depends on which dxf version was used to write it. My cad application exports v12. When the model arrives in SU (which is usually painless) it has no layer, group, material(colour) data. But the structure (edges, faces) in all intact. Your dxf/dwg seems to carry layer information, which means that once inside SU, you could probably set up a layer structure on the basis of colour.

When a 3ds from my cad app arrives in SU as you have found, every object appears as a unique component. My routine is to set up a series of layers (walls, floor, whatever) select all the walls and move to the wall layer, same for roof, floors, etc. The with only the wall layer open select all the individual wall pieces, explode and while still selected, make group. Repeat for all separate bits of roof, etc. It doesn't take me too long now on a reasonably sized project.

On first importing the 3ds, the model appears free-floating, waiting for you to "earth" it somewhere. If you snap to the origin, then when you import edited or new parts into the model, the origin will be consistent.

Good luck!

Would be happy if anyone had a fix for this pickle:

I import a model into SU as 3ds. Every object appears as a unique component (every component has its axes set at the origin)

So I select a bunch of pillars, open the components window > in model, right click a different pillar from the component list and hit "replace selected".

All my first selected components are gone. On further investigation I discover them all sitting renamed and superimposed at the origin.

I could explode the components aone by one and remake component, but that could be tedious. Any ideas for an easy fix?

Thanks Karl!

PS it is going to need gutters

Thanks, Stan! Great links.

Blender for architects is really taking off.

Seems to be mainly in Europe. I guess a lot of its appeal and importance is because it runs on linux systems. The linux people have been deprived for a long time!

Blender should be treated with respect. The lucky ones are frightened off at the first encounter. For some it has a strange addictive attraction and whoever continues to play around with it may be in danger of becoming a "Blenderhead". You have been warned.

But seriously, imo it has ever-growing potential for archvis. New versions appear quite often and features expand constantly. v2.47 has excellent snapping tools which are quite a recent development. And the rendering capabilities are amazingly varied and excellent for most users.

There is a strong community of arch people using it now.

http://yorik.orgfree.com/tutorials/precisionmodelling-blender.html
http://blender-archi.tuxfamily.org/Main_Page
http://yorik.orgfree.com/tutorials/architecture-blender.html

Hi Shaun

I've been working with your window script. It is useful and quite flexible. A few questions/comments:

I don't get the interior/exterior idea? how do i easily unite the interior and exterior parts? why not make the whole window as one entity?

the window is created inside a section of wall. this could be useful but maybe not necessary...what's your thinking behind this?

not sure what you mean by cladding...do you mean architrave? that surrounds the window? If I set clad width to zero, it gives a strange result...an unwanted face appears across the whole window

If you haven't lost interest, it is a useful tool and it would be great with a little fine tuning.

hope it's useful feedback

steve

Thanks for that Irv. I like the idea of having the joint as a separate component.

Have just accidentally discovered a very cool enhancement of Tom's method.

This method assumes you only want to cut one of the grouped objects, which I find is often the case.

The skp shows how.

booleans.skp

Nice tower Tom.

There was a discussion a while back about achieving realistic looking textures. The best results were got when people had actually modelled the detail of the texture and then applied a material to each part. Like in Bob's slate roof, the tiles themselves are 3d entities. And also David's roof to some extent. I really think this is the way to go if one has the time of course.

OK, got you Tom. That method is probably the best we have since
@unknownuser said:

the intersected lines arrive inside that group.

It seems that the faces created by the cut are not formed and must be done manually.

For interest's sake, the following method produces a result where the new faces are formed:

open group 1. select all geometry and copy. open group 2 and paste-in-place. while still selected, intersect-with-context. delete unwanted.

And Wo3Dan, thanks for your sharp observances...that will save me some trouble later!