Posts made by sonder

@jql said:

Thanks Kim,

Forgot the most important thing. Sketchup as conceptual tool is exactly the same as sketchup as construction documentation tool. It works exactly the same way and you never have to change a thing except evolving your ideas and adding detail. LO in perpetually part of that process... CAD breaks it.

A sketchup model evolves. From the existing condition to the finished project, it's work in progress. This sketchup model starts as a very raw boxy/triangulated shape or a prexisting building (wich all my projects tend to be nowadays.)

A sketchup model is for our office a perpetual iteraction between ideas, sharing, discussion, testing, ligthing and perfect material representation (with Thea as you know Kim). It's a permanent record of whatever goes through the mind of everyone envolved in the project.

And as ideas evolve the 3d evolves, it's more than drawing or a physical model. It's more like sculpting. LO documents this sculpting in every stage. It's always in sync and if you use it from the start you know it's this "in sync" with project/model evolution that really matters.

In sync with project concept.
In sync with the model discussed with client.
In sync with project when consultants enter the arena.
In sync with permits stage.
In sync with more consultants and price estimates.
In sync with construction documents and final reports.
In sync with construction itself.
In sync with finished building.

As soon as you export to CAD you break sync. As long as you keep working with LO sync is going on. That is what matters!

And this Sketchup model is virtually the best thing we architects can strive for, but most people think CAD is the real deal. They are imho wrong. CAD is the accessory here as it cannot register as many things as a Sketchup model does... it fails at everything but acomplish a standard 2d output.

And as I said before, that standard 2D output is something of the past, nowadays we can have so much more...

A sketchup model at a very early stage has already so much information to it that it opens up amazing possibilities. This is the opposite from a CAD drawing. LO can be set at initial stage and document that initial model in a day. Of course you can export it to CAD but why would you even trouble with that until you the permit stage or construction docs stage?

Nowadays I don't even bother with 2D drawings at a conceptual stage. A model and some Presto Renders and people get their jaws on the table.

A sketchup model at the later stage is a faithful representation of the built project. No 2D asset has that ability. LO can easily enough create the closest 2D possible to that 3D model.

The natural thing is to take 2D out of 3D but do it as seamless as possible and with as much info as possible.

LO is great at doing that. It just sucks working with it...

Excellent post!

As with any program, you have to understand its strengths and weaknesses to get the most out of performance. Once you clearly set the parameters of how LO works with SU, it is very fast. I used ACAD for over 20 years and I can produce a far more detailed set of documents with LO in about 1/3 the time I could with ACAD. The main place people have issues is when they try to vector render a scene that shows an entire model. Once you establish a good layering system that allows you to control the scenes you can easily determine which ones to Vector render opposed to raster or hybrid or combinations of the two which is what I do.

I love it! I use it for all my presentations from schematic design through full construction documents.

I actually don't keep a single project on one LO file. I create LO files based upon the drawing type - Site plans, Floor plans, Elevations etc. This really helps speed things up and should disaster happen with a corrupted file, your entire project is not lost. Then you can simply book the PDFs into a sinlge PDF if you care to. I keep them separate as it is easy to issue individual files as needed.

Ashcott, what graphics card are you using? a file like the one you posted should vector render almost instantly with a good card.

ACAD should recognize groups and components as blocks.

It depends on the size of the circle and segment number. A true arc will create a slightly larger area than segments meeting the endpoints/midpoints of the arc.

The raster line thickness is actually the section cut line thickness. In the style, edit, then choose the section style symbol (the blue cube), set the section cut width to 1.

You can certainly set the symbols in SU, but I think it is faster to do so in LO. If you do them in SU, set them on a layer so you can shut them off for rendering or export to a rendering software, since they won't render correctly. You would also want to set them up on a scene of their own so you can vector render them in LO.

The reason I use symbols rather than actual model fixture is readablilty. If I am using a 4" square led can, you wouldn't be able to read it in Layout. The symbols I use would probably scale as 16" fixture.

@richard said:

Whoa! 30x42" are you designing site signs? Most builders here in Australia would bury you under the footings if you used a sheet this large!

What sized projects are you working on? if it's an airport I guess you can be excused!

Yes, it's a crazy size to manage in the field. I never go larger than 24"x36"

Asimonas, I am never concerned about the exact position to the MM like that. The reality is, during construction, there will be flux in that location. For instance, if you are positioning lights in a floor cavity, the framing will dictate the locations more than the lighting plan. What I am concerned about is general placement, pattern and symmetry about a room. If you want to set a lighting layout that precise, you need to then make sure you modify the framing to allow that to work, or suspend a ceiling That can get very expensive. For decorative fixtures that are set over something like a sink or centered about a stair, I will first place the symbol on the floor plan or power signal plan, then cut/paste it onto the RCP. Since I setup my RCP with the exact orientation as the floor plan, this is very easy.

FWIW, I only export paper space for LO.

For a model space file I export out of SU.

@asimonas said:

@unknownuser said:

Thanks Tig!

A reflected ceiling plan is exactly as it sounds. It is as though you are looking down at the floor plan with a mirror for the floors surface.

I keep a separate RCP file that is used for both the architectural RCP and the lighting plan. It simply has my main structure model as a reference scaled at -1. The model is never edited in this file and the file is only used to create the specific scenes for the differenct RCP's. Then you simply cut a section looking down at the ceiling. Funny timing as I am doing a lighting plan right now.

But after you put it into Layout, how to you align your 2d scrapbook symbols on top? Try to find a centre of a recessed light and put 2d symbol?Later do you hide 3d lighting models? And if something changes - like you move recessed light, you do this in 3d model, then you have to move 2d symbol as well?

The only lights I model in SU, are typically decorative fixtures like pendants and sconces. All the general lighting like cans, I only add when I render in LumenRT. Any lighting that I add in SU is on its own layer and turned off for the CD scenes for LO. For the RCP in LO, I use my lighting scrapbook with symbols for various lighting types. I simply place them on the ceiling in an appropriate pattern. It's very easy to copy in LO in a defined grid & spacing, since you can set the insertion point of any element, anywhere you like.

Thanks Tig!

A reflected ceiling plan is exactly as it sounds. It is as though you are looking down at the floor plan with a mirror for the floors surface.

I keep a separate RCP file that is used for both the architectural RCP and the lighting plan. It simply has my main structure model as a reference scaled at -1. The model is never edited in this file and the file is only used to create the specific scenes for the differenct RCP's. Then you simply cut a section looking down at the ceiling. Funny timing as I am doing a lighting plan right now.

What I would do is make a master model that never gets edited. This file is only used for creating scenes and is comprized of the different components worked on by everyone. You then have one person in charge of making sure all the component references are updated in the master model. Ideally, you are dishing out the work based upon levels or areas of the building, so you are not dealing with 100's of components creating from 100's of different files.

Mikar - this is why I use standardized templates for each drawing type. The scales are preset. You should have your model set to scale obviously and then your dimension tool set to that same scale.

Exploding the SU model for me would take up too much time due to the file size.

Oh Jeez! Argue with me anytime. Cursor is correct. E1 is considered the standard large format size used in architecture, but around here, we never referred to it as E1. We all call it E - incorrectly obviously. It is 30x42. Architects rarely if ever go to the large format E at 36x48. If I ask my printer to print on "E" size, I will get 30x42; At least here in my neck of the woods. Not that it really matters to me, as I never use larger than D size. If the home is too large for the sheet I simply create a key plan at 1/8", then show partial plans at 1/4.

Any E size doesn't fit well on a tailgate! I think in another 10 years, there won't be any paper in the field. At least I hope so!

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.

I use elevation tags to show heights on elevations. LO is actually giving you a correct dimension, but it is measuring at an angle. If you don't want to use elevation tags, simply draw a line in LO from the two points you are measuring, lock the LO layer that the model is on, and add a dimension between the two lines you've drawn set to the appropriate scale.

If you are careful with the dimension tool, you can use inference instead of actually pinning a point that may not be aligned with the first point selected. This will result in the correct vertical dimension.

Once you set them up, don't change them unless you aren't concerned with the impact in Layout.

I had something similar happen once with a very large pdf export. Since then I break my construction documents into smaller sets...floor plans, elevations, etc. each with their own LO file. This really helps with organization and helps if you only need to send out a couple portions of the specific set.

That said, the way I fixed the problem, was a did a "Save as" to the file to preserve the original copy. On the copied file, I removed the pages that were problematic. I then inserted blank pages in the locations of the sheets removed. I then copy pasted from the original files all the page specific information to the new blank sheets. This doesn't take very long and is worth a try as it worked for me. After that, I never tried to make my LO files typically more than 8 sheets max.