What's your output quality set to under file/document setup - rendering quality? Every pdf I've posted was exported on pdf set to low and rendering quality set to high. Most of my 5 page documents take 30 seconds or so to generate.

I'm not sure why you guys are having these issues.

Super basic I know, but keep sub folders labeled by date in this fashion for order - (year, month date). So in my PDF or IMAGE folder, I keep sub folders that are labeled by date, such as 130118 = 2013, January, 18. This keeps everything sequential and simply records the process by date.

On another note, your LO drawing looks great. Lets see the whole page!

For most of my drawings, I export low and uncheck layers. It is fast and the quality is excellent. The export quality from layout is very high, even set to low. Uncheck layers really helps with the speed. Also, how many pages in the file obviously impacts the export time. Try to keep files to less than 10 pages.

@gilles said:

@unknownuser said:

If you are working in the field to tolerances higher than those stated, you are alone.

No, he is not alone.

@ Jeff, do you ever sleep?

Ok, lonely then. Seriously what world of building tolerance do you guys work? I thought my clients were wealthy. You guys must be on a level I can't imagine.

Honestly, I'm humbled by the strive for perfection.

Not sure how to respond. Jeff do you really think that installation you posted would have suffered from a .1% tolerance either created by the initial design or the actual implementation in creating it? This is crazy talk in this level of construction. I mentioned frank Gehry earlier. Do you honestly believe his original drawings were conceived to the highest level of tolerance achieved in the drawings? Absolutely not! In any way shape or form. We all strive for perfection, no doubt, but your arguemnet as it relates to the final installation is irrelevant. If I'm wrong, then please explain to me how so many articulate projects have been constructed upon hand drafted plans (basically throughout 99% of recorded history) where real tolerances in the paper world could vary so much farther than the minuscule variances you are touching on in an arc created in SU?

Well then Jeff you clearly must see that those tolerances in the field are easily accomplished. If you are working in the field to tolerances higher than those stated, you are alone. I'm not knocking in any way the need for precision, but the reality in the field is quite different from those on our computer screen. To think otherwise in the field of building construction is a mistake. Again, the issue we are discussing is only related to curves, and not octagonal construction, so the implications in real life woul be far less of an issue unless you are Frank Gehry, and then, they are even far less of an issue due to the randomness of the curve in question.

I honestly think, expecting inaccuracies in the field is not letting oneself down, it just prepares you for, and helps you anticipate the uninevitable.

I've been using Kerkythea for the past few years. Will this be a fairly easy transition? I love the results I'm seeing.

IMHO sketchup reacts really well to better graphics cards. I've had great success with the nvidia gtx cards. My new computer is coming at the end of the month with a gtx 680 4gb card powered by an i7 3930 clocked at 4.2.

Since that tolerance is limited to arc off set, that added deviation is even further limited. Even in the most precision construction environments, an 80 foot arc being out 1/4" is much more common than one would imagine.

We all hold to the accuracies of our documents, but the reality to the field more often than not, is " hammer to fit, paint to match".

I'm not knocking the desire for completely accurate drawings. I'm just tempering it with the reality of field construction, where 1/4" deviations are not even considered in overall construction.

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

Jeff I commend you for the detail. And while I agree with a tolerance of 1/2" in 80 feet is unacceptable on a computer, it is way more than accurate to what is achieved in the field of construction. Industry standards are typically set to 1/8" in 10' for standard tolerance and 1/16" in 10' for precision. This is of course, building construction.

hey nick,

i've discussed this previously.. (and i don't know if it's in this thread or another.. i bet i've brought these issues up, in some shape or form, hundreds of times in the past 5 years here.)

but, those tolerances need to be set aside for the builders (the guys out there sweating, cussing, drinking beer, etc )

the drawing needs to be accurate though.. because what you're saying is this..

"i'm allowed an error of 1/8" over 10' in my computer... the guys on site are allowed the same"

so, you've just unwittingly doubled the acceptable tolerance.. and that's not acceptable

Jeff I commend you for the detail. And while I agree with a tolerance of 1/2" in 80 feet is unacceptable on a computer, it is way more than accurate to what is achieved in the field of construction. Industry standards are typically set to 1/8" in 10' for standard tolerance and 1/16" in 10' for precision. This is of course, building construction. Hitting tolerances higher is more suited towards mechanical and industrial design. At that point, a higher level of precision in the software would be required. My guess is that will be achieved shortly.

I use Kerkythea quite a bit. I'm swamped right now though. Maybe post some specific questions, or are you completely lost on how to start?

It's actually a very simple program.

Double click on the entity and edit using the grips. If you simply select and stretch, you are scaling the entity.

The only time I ever have Drape cause a crash is if I try to drape too many items. It will also crash from certain ACAD imports, if you do not explode blocks. Other than that, it has been extremely stable for me.

Huh? Never had issues with the offset tool. It's always been accurate for me, and I use it all the time.

Clipping occurs if you are far from the origin and set your field of view too wide.

I finally ordered my new machine from Origin. Should be a beast! I agree on the video card - get the best you can afford. The machine I'm getting has the GTX 680 with 4Gb. The machine I am currently on has the GTX 550ti with 1Gb. It works well, but the video card is probably the most important aspect of the machine for what we do, so buy up on that component.

Break down what you are draping into parts. This way it also helps with assigning layers to the line work that gets draped. Start with the property lines, then setback, then easements, then trees and so on. Each time you drape a set of elements, highlight them on the terrain and assign a layer. This way you will have complete control over what is visible. It also reduces the amount of information you are trying to drape in a single command.

@bmike said:

@unknownuser said:

Mike, where did you go to school. Sounds a lot like my school - RISD.

Cleveland Institute of Art, BFA Sculpture, but I spent time in ID, Graphics, and lots of time working for carpenters and woodworkers.

Then to Columbia for Grad school in Architecture. Burned out after a year. Too much $$$$ for living in the city and going to school, and lots of folks who didn't seem to care about the art of actually building...

Had a good friend go to RISD for furniture. This would have been in mid 90s. Spent some time there hanging out, fun town. Will be there in 2 weeks visiting and engineer I work with and doing some warranty research on a project I designed a few years ago.

Also know a prof down at RISD via some artists I worked for as an assistant in NYC and a by way of a project that I worked on in Jamestown.

Small world.

I know, crazy. I see you are in Vermont. I went to Kimball Union Academy near White River Junction.

@pbacot said:

What do you hope not, Nick? Or you hope it is never standardized?

You mean each of us must create his or her own textures and these will always be recognizable by all, even neophytes?

I was hoping your pattern library would be available ($) . (Though I am far from doing such details myself, this might get me there sooner).

My thought is that a material image (photographic) is more telling than a hatch pattern used to define a given material. I don't think there is a need to standardize images used in defining materials. Concrete can look like concrete in many different images. What I love about SU is the customization allowed by the individual user. We are not bound by standards like this anymore.

Using concrete as an example, just search Google images and you will see hundreds of images of concrete. Most all would clearly be seen as concrete given the context of application to a given foundation model/section/detail. There is no need for a standard pattern any more. I would hate to go back to that, so I really hope that is not something Trimble deems necessary for either SU or LO. I would much rather the focus be placed on getting us even further beyond what has been the industry standard.