UV mapping anyone?
-
-
Awesome tool, but lack of OS X & Vista support is kind of limiting - does it support skp files directly or is it a matter of exporting to 3ds?
-
yes, it works with .skp
-
Solo,
I have to agree with Bigstick, without supporting MAC or Vista this is a disappointment. While it is truly an industry standard I am surprised by them not supporting multiple platforms. Not to mention you can not they are not even producing XP or XP PRO anymore (only OEM licenses). I am sure the support for MAC and Vista will come in time it is just surprising to me that they would do a release that does not cover these.
I have been using Modo (when I find the time) and their UV mapping tools are really quite powerful and to have image editing, UV tools and a great native renderer all in one package was really what sold me on Modo. I even got ahold of a current sketchup importer (not mentioning how...sorry) which works flawlessly. If you have a chance it is well worth checking out.
Scott
-
I would like to see something like this integrated into the SU styles I would call this tool Make-Up.
-
@bruell said:
I would like to see something like this integrated into the SU styles I would call this tool Make-Up.
MakeUp - The SketchUp UV Mapping utility.
I like it!
-
if they aren't going to do it themselves, Google ought to simply acquire Ultimate Unwrap 3D. It's basically a one-man band, so how pricey can it be? It ought to be easy enough to port over to the Mac.
-
You mean that Google should adopt Microsoft's business practices?
It certainly makes sense in this instance. Maybe we should wait for SU7 before we nag them hard about this. -
I think having good a good uv tool is something that brings down Sketchup in a big way. While I know there have been rubies made to try to solve this problem (thanks Whatt) it is just sad that so many tools need to be made by users and are not addressed by google themselves. Texturing is a large part of good content creation and to think that Sketchup has been lacking this as far as I have been using it still baffles me.
-
@unknownuser said:
it is just sad that so many tools need to be made by users and are not addressed by google themselves
Read the essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".
Basically I would hate it if Google tried to do it all themselves. "We are smarter than any one of us".
It's why I love using Firefox, they provide a really good base, then the users create and share all the "extras" that make it operate exactly the way they want it to, not like some 800 pound Gorilla thinks you should be FORCED to.
Give us the basic tool and then get out of the way. Google knows this and Microsoft does not, look who is growing and who is working full time non-stop trying and trying to convince people that Vista is NOT the steaming pile that they can smell from 50 yards away.
Tired now, going to bed, rant over.
-
Hazza,
I totally agree with you I just look to core modeling programs and I have a hard time finding any one of them worth their weight and not find a good integrated UV tool. It is a major tool to be left out of a core modeling program. Some thing that the community has built rubies for are specific requests that people like to have but are not core requirements in my opinion. I think when people have to regularly look to a separate program or ruby to complete a major part of a modeling/texturing task shows that it needs to be integrated and not left to the masses to come up with a working solution (even though Whatt has come up with another killer ruby
. Any votes for Whatt to be part of the development team? One vote right here! -
Hazza, i agree with you in principal, but i think google still needs to improve the core texturing capabilities within SU. Without the basic texture handling capabilities in SU the ruby gods cant really do a lot.
-
@remus said:
Without the basic texture handling capabilities in SU the ruby gods cant really do a lot.
That what I meant by "they provide a really good base", there are core features that plugins cannot match, UV mapping is probably one of them.
-
The Cathedral and Bazaar reference is really interesting actually, and particularly when you consider SU in comparison to Blender. In terms of capabilities, Blender can do far more and is a lot more flexible. I guess that's the 'Bazaar' for you. SketchUp, as the 'Cathedral' is a much nicer application to use and benefits from a very strong vision that structures and organises everything. The thing that always struck me was quite how impenetrable Blender was (and still is I guess) to use. SketchUp has shown everyone that 3d does not have to be complicated. You would have imagined things to be the other way around.
Perhaps it's not really a fair comparison, and I ought to be comparing Blender to Lightwave, SoftImage or Maya. I have read that SU has quite a few limitations in terms of the ways in which it allows interaction with other applications. In terms of the UI though - what a mess! That sort of complexity is just crazy. Blender could learn a lot from SketchUp in terms of intuitive workflow.
I do think that there are core things that need implementing/fixing for SketchUp to really progress. Multicore support, support for much higher polygon count, shadow bug, better texturing are a few. I doubt it will ever become as flexible as Blender, but we can only hope I guess.
-
...Just skipping past all the important stuff you said...
I hope SU doesnt try and do everything blender can do. They are different apps for different things.
-
I have to agree with Remus here. Adding too much drives up complexity and in the end costs. I just think there are some major "misses" from making Sketchup a real hit....UV tools and the shadow bug are the 2 biggest for me.
Advertisement