@pbacot said:

@unknownuser said:

@rtbuild47 said:

I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.

artybuild

Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.

Yeah, but in office work there is such a thing as standardization and efficiency. Hatches developed over time to have the consistent look and are easily identified (basic ones like wood, conc., earth anyway). And, of course it's something when done by hand you need the interns to learn, so it has to be easily defined and copied. It doesn't take an artist.

Nowadays we don't really want the "make-work"-let the computer do it. So eventually someone who has developed some nice detail textures will lead the way forward and set the standard.

Man I hope not. I think the beauty of SU textures is they look like real materials. They are not a hatch pattern, and are immediately recognized by all the contractors and laborers. Hatches are a cryptic way to depict materials, that are hopefully going to be gone by the way side. I get a lot of positive feedback on my details, especially from the Spanish speaking work force. In many cases, even the text isn't necessary.....a picture is worth a thousand words. Not sur you can say the same for a hatch pattern.

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

@bmike said:

@unknownuser said:

@rtbuild47 said:

I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.

artybuild

Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.

I also suspect that hatching was a product of the times - plotters and printers that handled lines, and PCs that did the same.

Actually those plotters and printers were the hand and pencil days. Ouch I'm getting old. I graduated architectural school in 1987, so hand drawing was still the main course, with ACAD just really starting to move in the industry.

How far is the model off the 0,0,0 axis? The farther you are away, the worse the clipping.

@rtbuild47 said:

I use LO all the time for Building Regulation and construction drawings and my only
gripe is that to define materials have to use colors or shades, when hatching would be so much more professional.

artybuild

Hmm, I think the opposite. Hatching was developed to identify and define perameters of materials or scope, while SU and layout do this in a method to me that is more clear and direct. I would rather see CMU that looks like CMU rather than a cross hatch pattern that is referenced in a schedule telling you it is CMU.

I'd hire the local thugs and shake that DWG out of the surveyor!

Now I understand - you can't get the DWG for some reason, or it was created on something other than ACAD. I've never run into this yet.

If you can get the acad file, you could create that topography for that site with sandbox tools in minutes. Am I missing something?

This is the project I mentioned above.

From a liability stand point, I would always try to use only the information the surveyor provides. Sand box tools do an excellent job of creating the mesh from contours, without you having to interpret or "guess". It is also really fast.

I'm sure most if not all surveyors would be willing to send you a digital file. I've never had an issue with that, and I work with about 6 different surveyors.

I currently have a 3500 sf home under construction on a really steep lot (30% slope). The design has lots of tiered patios and elevation changes that relate to the topography. We had no issues in the field.

Another aspect of utilizing the contours provided by the surveyor is that it makes pinning building corners very quick and easy using the measure tool.

Since the sandbox tool is creating the mesh from the contours, those lines by default appear in teh mesh when you select "show hidden geometry". This really makes a difference when setting a project at a particular elevation relative to the survey.

Mike that looks like a great piece of software, but I doubt it can extrapolate Z vector information, which is what you would need for the contour information.

I don't know of any surveyor that doesn't use ACAD. Just request the acad file and import it directly into SU. Typcially you will get all the line work set at z axis 0 and all the contours come in at their specified elevation. Then it is a simple matter of selecting the contours, use the sandbox tools to create the mesh, then select all the line work and use the drape tool to set on the ground plane you created with the contours.

This is the process I use, and I can typically model a 1-2 acre site in a couple hours, including trees.

Mike, I also keep dated "versions". The way I keep track is "Project Name"_1. When a change occurs it goes to "Project Name"_2. This way the most recent version is easily accessed and referenced easily. Most projects usually go to version 4 or 5, although I had one that went to 22! That was a little painful, but this method made it work easily.

On the deliverables which are typically .jpeg and .pdf files, I have separate folders for those. In the JPEG folder and PDF folders are sub folders that are named by date such as "130107" (2013, January 7th). Using this format is really nice as explorer keeps them in order and back up is a breeze.

With regards to files, I organize mine the same way I did with acad. I have a main SU folder that has the base SU files and a folder named LAYOUT. I keep all drawing types as separate files in Layou, such as, site plans, floor plans, sections, etc. works very easy in keeping things organized.

Implementing grouping and layer assignment from the beginning is very important for the workflow. When I start a home, I immediately create my layers - Foundation, First Floor, Second Floor, Roof as the initial basics. Once I draw a particular floor (always draw on layer 0), I group it and assign it to the appropriate layer. Then you can draw on top of that layer to create the next group. Repeat the process and you will have a clean model with easy control.

I've actually been giving a lot of thought to this lately. One major aspect of SU & LO that is so remarkable, is how it is so easy to customize a work flow. I've developed one that works really well for me, but certainly may not for others. In what I've discovered, there are certainly some practices that are more efficient than others, yet I will fall back to a process that is more familiar to my given process. I would love to document this in the Rey near future down to the detail that DOD3R mentions.

I'm getting pretty swamped with work in the new year, and want to schedule some serious time on opening up LO further. All I hear in the back of my head, is Paul Lee, yelling CAD MUST DIE! This will be a big year for SU & LO in my opinion. I'll try my best to help.

What TIG is preaching is the truth! Always draw everything on layer 0. Only assign components and groups to specific layers. Once you get in this habit, problems like this will go away, and you will find that the layer management control is much more straight forward than ACAD.

Thanks for the compliments. I like to talk about SU and LO, so that helped, along with Tyson Kartchner's video skills. I think perfection would make the videos too dry. We are all human as Mike mentioned. Seeing simple errors or hearing the dog bark, phone ring, make me feel as though the end result is achievable by mere mortals. Also depending on what level of SU user is the target audience, you do have to make some assumptions on skill level. Otherwise the videos would be hours long......first grab the line tool, start line and move along axis..........you get what I mean. Those skills should be assumably learned by the viewer based upon the level of the tutorial.

In the next one, I'll make sure the beer is in view!

1. Draw your road surface and make it a group.
2. Draw your striping as rectangles over the road surface to your required length and width. Save this line work as another group.
3. Highlight the line work group and select the drape tool.
4. Then select the road group as the drape surface.
5. Now you can color the striping on the road any Color you like.

This will work regardless of elevation changes in the road. You just Ned to make sure you are drawing the striping in the correct relationship to the road edge.

Try opening the Layout program, not by selecting a layout file, but by opening from scratch. Typically when you do this layout will give you an option to recover crashed files. I haven't had Layout crash in a long time now, so I'm sorry, I can't answer your specific question.

Nick

@mrstop said:

@unknownuser said:

While some may disagree, architectural drawings should only be drawn to the framing and dimensioned accordingly.

Thanks for the clarification. I just surmised from the detail and beauty of your drawings, you were including everything!

In the details, yes I do draw everything. Sorry, I should have clarified.

@mrstop said:

Thanks for the excellent set of videos. I have just started playing around with layout and they are very helpful to understand the process.

You mention in the videos that you dimension to rough framing, which I get the reasons why. You say you do this by dimensioning inside of trim. In the Sketchup file, does trim also include drywall (or other wall finish( in addition to other trim-work? If so, are you modeling the drywall separately, or are you just pulling the dimensions back the amount equivalent to the drywall spec?

While some may disagree, architectural drawings should only be drawn to the framing and dimensioned accordingly. These are the first elements that are constructed by the contractor and everything else - drywall, trim etc. is added to it. As an architect you need to be aware the impact those other elements have on a space so you draw taking them into consideration. Closets are a classic example. Typically you want a minimum of 24" clear on the inside, so you draw the walls spaced 25" to account for the drywall if 1/2" is used and 25 1/4" if 5/8' is used.

I do model trim in the model, which only serves a purpose on interior elevations and interior renderings. The thickness of the drywall does not impact those particular drawings.

I've personally witnessed the mess that showing drywall thickness has in the field. Most contractors cringe when they see it, because 1/4" scale drawings make it very difficult to see the intention of the architect.