Everything that is made these days is designed and drafted so a manufacturer or builder can produce it. I still love Sketchup and Layout, it’s just that sometimes they really get under my nerve (Layout a lot more than Sketchup, of course.So let’s go over the basics of AutoCAD. Sorry for taking this opportunity to rant once more. I’ve banged countless times against this particular issue, but I’ll give up eventually. They are almost there, but ruin it all with minor things that don’t work as they should. ![]() ![]() It’s this kind of idiosyncrasy that makes Sketchup/Layout products look imature and unpolished sometimes. I imagine most people either import from DWG or Draw 2D directly in Sketchup.Īlso Export for Sketchup would be totally useless if Sketchup had a correct DWG import method. I know there are famous Sketchup users that do that, but that is something that I find really strange. I actually think that drawing in Layout and exporting that drawing to Sketchup is a niche use case. So, even if Export for Sketchup is the main method I use I’m against it. This is how every DWG file should be imported to Sketchup and if that was so, Export for Sketchup wouldn’t be needed. Every entity inside those Groups should be Untagged. Sketchup should import DWG Entities into Groups assign them to the corresponding Tag. This Export to Model Space could be useful as an Export to Sketchup too if Sketchup’s DWG import method was different (as it should). There really should be an Export to Model Space, that would be exacly the same as an Export to Sketchup, but entities would be distributed into Layers and not into Blocks. When engineers, but mostly, when Landscape Architects actually want to work with line entities inside the blocks, they have to explode them and all entities explode to Layer0. This is good for Sketchup imports, but awful for CAD work. The entities inside the block are in Layer0. Every Layout layer is converted to a block and the block is assigned into a Layer.and the regular DWG export, where all Layout entities except model viewports would appear in paper space.Įven so, engineers do like texts to be exported to model space so they don’t have to go back and forth paperspace and modelspace to read them, So I mostly use Export for Sketchup. This third export format would be a mix between Export for Sketchup, where images and viewports would be kept in modelspace and everything else would be deleted. Stacking viewports is (still) standard workflow There probably should be a third method that is a mix between both: stacking viewports in model space and sending Layout specific entities to papers pace. The method of exporting for SketchUp is the only export method that correctly stacks layout stacked viewports into DWG model space. I don’t think you’re getting old and I do think all of this is very complex and I just got there because I needed, but it’s worth questioning it if it can be optimized. Having said that, I do keep a file with all overlays on, but I use it for my own work, not for exporting for others to work with. The structural engineer doesn’t turn on the HVAC unless he needs to. They can turn on their isolated engineering plan. The engineers can deal with turning layers on and off.They probably don’t deal well with layers and often just want to check on architecture anyway, (to check some measurements or areas) or send to someone else and budget some aspect of the building. I can’t imagine what would happen if my clients would find all the overlays on top of architectural layers. I don’t want my client to turn Layers on and off when he’s opening the file in DWG. But some clients do check DWG files instead of PDF.The PDF will be a clean architectural drawing. I will export a PDF too and that is probably what the Client needs to review the project.I want to send a single file to all stakeholders. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |