@unknownuser said:

E size in U.S. is standard at 30"X42". D size is 24"x36". E size is a total pain in the field. D is much more manageable. These days I just use my iPad in the field.

Don't wanna be a pest ... but to be clear, there are umpteen paper-format standard sets, globally:
DIN (German), ISO, JIS, "Architectural," and then the ANSI (American National Standards Institute).

Excusing all but the architectural "standards," and the ANSI standards, we have the following:

A R C H I T E C T U R A L [pre:3i755aoo]Arch A 9 × 12
Arch B 12 × 18
Arch C 18 × 24
Arch D 24 × 36
Arch E 36 × 48
Arch E1 30 × 42
Arch E2 26 × 38
Arch E3 27 × 39[/pre:3i755aoo]30"X42" is an "E1" format, not an "E."

Peaking at the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) specification, however:
[pre:3i755aoo]ANSI A 5 × 11
ANSI B 11 × 17
ANSI C 17 × 22
ANSI D 22 × 34
ANSI E 34 × 44[/pre:3i755aoo]Regardless of what any architectural paper standard might be (or might have been):
In 1996 the American National Standards Institute adopted ANSI/ASME Y14.1 which defined a regular series of paper sizes based upon the de facto standard 8½"x11" (letter size) which it assigned "ANSI A." Tabloid — 11"x17" — is "ANSI B."

To repeat my previous post:

From my experience at Hercules Aerospace in UT (late 70s through most of the 80s), E-sized drawings were/are 34"x44". Yes, they were in fact quite difficult to manage ... both in the office and for field personnel.

Personally I prefer formats that fold neatly to fit a letter-sized format (8½"x11"). 22"x34" (ANSI D) works great.
I hope that you can appreciate my lifelong experience, as I can appreciate your recent, yet very significant contribution to the SketchUp/Layout community. I will be purchasing your soon-to-be-published book.

Thanks for all your constructive input, Nick.

Beyond E, E1, E2, and E3, there are sizes F through N. Most are not anymore employed.

Yes, Ashlar introduced a great product years ago. I was lucky enough to sit across a dinner table with Martin Newell (owner of 20 patents) on three occasions. The inferencing system was actually patented by him. I expect that he is collecting royalties from everyone employing that technology.
http://patents.justia.com/patent/5123087

So custom ticks are NOT available ... no circles, no dots (of any user-definable size, or outline thickness and no custom termination graphics allowed). How ... realistically (time consuming) might that be for a Trimble staff of programmers to implement such a beneficial and logical feature? Hey, just curious.

As previously noted, I've been a supporter since @Last 2000.

Standards certainly very, don't they. I thought that to be a major point of mine.

Actually, while I have great respect for what Nick Sonder has offered (particularly in terms of SU/LU structure), his statement regarding paper standards seemed inaccurate.

I have argued with many an architect, over any number of issues (some are more informed than others ... like engineers, like auto mechanics, like ... whomever), and I won't hesitate in the future (especially when their statements are patently wrong). I recently spent no less than $5,600 on the advice of a licensed architect ... who admitted to me that she couldn't "visualize space in 3D." Yeah, my bad. So ... paper-size issues should be a minor issue. The facts are there. Don't take offense, and don't take arbitrary sides based on some professional preference. (You don't, afterall, have a clue about what I do, nor about how such might trump or lay shallow to Mr. Sonder's.

Truth is, there are standards. And they are very many.

Here, we're talking about paper standards. I can handle that. I can also handle 3D visualization/design.

I didn't mean to rock anyone's boat.

I specifically suggested a couple of days ago that some introductory venue might be offered for new members of the forum to introduce themselves (although I joined in 2008, I have not at all been active), but I just got jokes as feed-back.

In short, I have worked in engineering and architectural circles since 1968. I'm NOT some 12 year old. Hell ... my grandson just turned 20 years old. As a matter of fact, my daughter's 40th birthday is exactly today!

Perhaps we could share more, later ... at some more appropriate place/time. This thread is about standardized paper formats, after all.

If you want to limit the standards, then at the very least recognize:

• E sized architectural format is 36"x48" (not 30"x42")
• E1 sized architectural format is 30"x42"

I will remind you that for 40+ years (as hinted in my previous post) Hercules Aerospace has/had assumed the 34"x44" format ... in pencil, in ink, and on mylar or vellum. I used all of those media ... using T-square & triangles, Hamilton mechanical rising drafting tables and coupled drafting arm solutions, etc.

Actually, the same 34"x44" E format was recognized by the very largest privately owned engineering company in the world — Fluor Engineers and Constructors (Irvine CA) — for whom I worked for three years. But hell, what did I know at the time (at the age of 22-25) about standardized media formats. What did Nick Sonder know at that time?

I can actually supply a photograph of me working at such a manual workstation (in 1975). Warning ... my hairline has receded some. I guess that doesn't matter since you don't have a clue what I look like now! LOL

Kind Regards

[ c ]

Thanks for bringing up this issue, Mikar. You beat me to the punch.

There appear to be no alternatives to the simple tick/slash within Layout for marrying a dimension line with both its extension lines (both linear & angular). MANY other graphics programs have long offered a number of alternative symbols/shapes ... some offering total user customization.

As a singular example, in 1989) I became a VAR for a product called Ashlar Vellum (now called Graphite). It was a 3D wireframe vector graphics program. Dimension customization options included:

• Arrowhead type (seven standard types immediately available)
• Arrow edit (length & height)
• Gap (from target object vertex)
• Extension (from dimension line)
• Text offset from dimension line)
  This variability was offered by a program that was introduced for public consumption 26 years ago!

What might SketchUp Layout have to offer in terms of user-dimension customization ... for future releases? I'm currently have SketchUp/Layout Pro 2015 (and have been a SketchUp user since @Last first released their product in 2000 — back when I was a ripe young sub-50 year old).

I am always looking forward to more.

@unknownuser said:

Yes, 30"x42" is E size in US. I stopped using this size as the contractors hate it in the field. I only use D size now (24" x 36").

From my experience at Hercules Aerospace in UT (late 70s through most of the 80s), E-sized drawings were/are 34"x44". Yes, they were in fact quite difficult to manage ... both in the office and for field personnel.

Personally I prefer formats that fold neatly to fit a letter-sized format (8½"x11"). 22"x34" (ANSI D) works great.

Love the "3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population", Dave.

Thanks for your help.

Personally, I think that it would be helpful to offer a forum or std thread for personal member introductions. [On other forums with which I have actively dealt] I enjoy(ed) knowing some background of the folk with whom I am addressing a topic — whether to understand level of user competence or just to enjoy some personable connection. Might that be some future option for this forum?

I did a number of Google searches, including "download latest version of sketchup layout" It results in nothing significant. [link]

From the last post by Dave R, it appears that I need to simply point my application icon at a different executable. I'll give it a go. Thanks Dave.

At first glance I now see a LayOut 2015 icon on my desktop. Since I never actually use my Desktop, but rather organize my programs' access using a customized Start menu, I never did see that. Thanks. Should be an easy fix.

Thanks for the quick replies, folks.

When I opened Layout, then did a Help > Check for update, I'm told:

@unknownuser said:

A new version of SketchUp LayOut is now available.

I clicked the Upgrade Now button. That takes me to http://www.sketchup.com/download/all. Since I see no reference on that page to Layout, I assume that downloading the latest version of SketchUp Pro 2015 will include the latest version of Layout. I guess not.

It's not clear to me why when I specifically ask for the latest version of Layout, it sends me to a SketchUp Pro 2015 download web page. Where then do I need to go to download the latest version of Sketchup Layout?

Thanks for your help.

Just now finally trying to use Layout, but am having a problem right off the bat.

• SketchUp Pro 2015 – version 15.3.331 64-bit
• SketchUp Layout – version 3.0 16846
  From Layout I select File > Insert, identify the .skp file that I want, then click the Open button. I get an error message which reads:

@unknownuser said:

The following file(s) failed to insert: D:\data\filename.skp

If however I try to insert a .skp model that was created using an older version of SketchUP, then it seems to insert just fine.

Ideas on how to address this would be appreciated.

There are items that never change, once a drawing template is finalized — the company name, location, phone number, website ID, etc. Text field tags like "revisions", "sheet", "print date", "issue date" should not be editable (as long as they are on a locked layer). Would it not make sense to offer the option of locking 1) position, and/or 2)content?

Portions of title blocks should be protectable from user manipulation. It's logical that locked layers should provide for that. Any text that resides on a locked layer, however, can be 2x-clicked and edited. Why is that?