Drawings & Documentation - Donation proposal

J by jes_r on 27 Mar 2025 # +1 votes

@Moult said:

A number of these bugs probably need careful consideration on how they're implemented as they could be part of a bigger system.

I'd like to investigate a few avenues at least first before figuring out what a longer term solution is: Blender, Inkscape, Web, and Other. Ive reached out for inkscape https://mastodon.social/@thinkMoult/114230927580652602

True of course, better a good working solution that takes a little more time than a bad quick one. Though I believe fixing these problems could greatly help Bonsai as an complete and professional tool, appealing to (much) more people! Like if the drawing view in Bonsai would be fixed, this would make it way easier for newcomers to learn this tool.

J by JanF on 29 Mar 2025 # +5 votes

Use cases

In my view there are three use cases to this:

1. 2D drawing annotation (showing other people what the dimensions are)

Level 0 you can't show dimensions
Level 1 you can add static dimensions
Level 2 you can add dimensions that adapt
Level 3 dimensions are generated automatically

2. 3D Design tool (input/output for the designer when moving stuff around)

Level 0 you can only move things approximately
Level 1 you can input a distance when moving something
Level 2 you see the distance from other objects all the time and can overwrite it to move an element

3. 3D coordination (in a meeting looking at the model, showing someone distance between some objects)

Level 0 you can't add dimensions
Level 1 you have to create a plan or section first
Level 2 you can add meaningful dimensions in 3D
Level 3 dimensions are automatically generated

Examples

Revit does a great job on #1 and #2 as it joins them seamlessly. On #3 is very awkward.
Revizto does a good job on #3, for example the laser measure tool is great to use

Bonsai

Which direction should Bonsai go? For now we have two suggestions: web interface or Blender viewport

Achieving #1 Lvl 2 and #2 Lvl 2 (as Revit has) is almost impossible (neither building a complete modelling UI in the web interface nor WYSWIG in Blender viewport is realistic)

For designing by hand is #2 essential. Right now if I want to set my corridor to 1300mm I have to add a dimension, calculate the difference, move my wall, move my dimension.

Is #1 Lvl 2 (or possibly 3) + #2 Lvl 1 enough? (More or less what Archicad does)

Z by zoomer on 29 Mar 2025 # +1 votes

@JanF said:

For designing by hand is #2 essential. Right now if I want to set my corridor to 1300mm I have to add a dimension, calculate the difference, move my wall, move my dimension.

My typical "KISS" (*) approach would usually be something like :

Move Wall B to touch Wall A
Move Wall B to desired distance from Wall A

(* keep it stupid simple)

As I can't remeber complex sophisticated Tool Workflows or Short keys across Apps - or in general.

Z by zoomer on 29 Mar 2025 #

@JanF said:

1. 2D drawing annotation (showing other people what the dimensions are)

Level 0 you can't show dimensions

Level 1 you can add static dimensions

Level 2 you can add dimensions that adapt

Level 3 dimensions are generated automatically

Mostly 3D only here, never really needed/created serious 2D Plans ... so likely off topic ....

Where do Dimensions really belong to, Model or Paper Space ?

In 3D (Model Space), associated Dimensions, that work both ways, are great ! (but reliable ?)

Move the Wall and the Dimensions updates. Select the Dimension Value and a reference point - set a new Value - makes the Wall move .....

If I got that correct, in some Apps, Dimensions in Paper Space, means in the Annotation Space of a Viewport, are meant to be also associative Dimensions (one way). If the Viewport is regenerated/updated, associative Dimensions should recognize the changes and also update !? (never tested that. A miracle for me. Stability/reliability ?)

And there are "temporary" dynamic Dimensions to check or edit geometry. In Bricscad, when you select a Solid (by a certain Face), it will automatically offer dynamic Dimensions, which reach to the next neighboring Object's Faces, vertically to that initial Face's Plane. You can edit their values to easily check distances or to enter a new value to move the selected objects.

In 2D CAD you usually have Dimensions in Model Space in their own Layer to control visibility. In 3D (better typical 2.5D BIM Apps) with generated Plans, you may often have them in Model Space - for Top Plans, while for Sections and Elevations you often need them in Annotation Space anyway.

Changes in Model in a pure 2D Workflow and correcting all Plans is tedious. But I think deviations in 3D generated Plans Annotation Layers is at least as much error prone to keep in sync.

Even Dimensions alone are already a quite complex thing.

So I would agree to :

@Moult said:

A number of these bugs probably need careful consideration on how they're implemented as they could be part of a bigger system.

Where need generated Drawings to reside, inside or offside the BIM App. Is it easier to keep both Apps and Data in sync or to offer needed features in the main App. I have no clue but think both is not totally unlikely.

J by JanF on 29 Mar 2025 #

Where do Dimensions really belong to, Model or Paper Space ?

There's also a view concept in all modern Bim applications and this is exactly where annotations sit. So you have a single model, which is referenced in multiple views, which are annotated and put on layouts.

N by Nigel on 29 Mar 2025 # +1 votes

this is a little off topic but important (IMHO) to structure thinking about developing drawing outputs. Also, it is no criticism of anyone using these terms. Now the preamble is out of the way :) I think we could drop terms like 'Model Space' and 'Paper Space', reasoning is these terms can frame and restrict our thinking to just mimicking other software like autocad. We could think in terms of inputs and outputs, the former are plans, sections and elevations if the Ifc 3D, spreadsheets, images, dxf (and other vector files) PDFs etc. and the latter (the output) is PDFs, Images, dxf (and other vector files). I hope I'm making sense?

G by Gorgious on 31 Mar 2025 # +2 votes

Personally inputs and output are more of a formal thing that's higher in the hierarchy of things to consider, like when I get a project I gather all the information, plans etc at my disposal, those would be the inputs. Then I churn out a 3D model or plans, sections, visuals, video, etc. These are the outputs that my client needs. Sometimes I create outputs that will be used to refine the model, eg spotting an error or an inconsistencies on a plan view that was obscured by some part of the model in the 3D view. But my client doesn't care about these, so it's not really an output of my workflow, rather a part that serves to build the final product.

I like the framing of having a 3D model "ground truth" (albeit taking into account level of detail settings) and being able to derive different views which are designed to highlights some parts of the 3D model or some semantic information on the elements of the model. Automatic annotations are not that hard to do. Meaningful automatic annotations, though... If you're not using a fully constraints based system it's really hard to create an algorithm that will know which properties to highlight. Does my client care that this wall is 30 cm thick, or does he care that its interior surface area is 4m², or does he care that it is made of bricks ?

Go to page: