SketchUP 8
-
We have 4 licenses so it's a bit more but still, it's a very cheap upgrade relatively speaking.
-
@jbacus said:
@rv1974 said:
"No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." -Bill Gates, 1981
"64-bit processing will have no benefit" -John Bacus. 2010(sic!)
Be polite. I'm making a more complex point than you're giving me credit for making.
john
.=======
'I don't think ordinary users will see any benefit from a 64-bit SketchUp'-
http://www.deelip.com/?p=2643
Being responsible for your sayings\deeds (or lack of deeds)- that's what I'd call to be 'polite' -
When you see how 'Solid tools' and SDS 2 work together (new quad subdivision) it will be reason enough for the organic modelers out there.
-
@unknownuser said:
Does 83$ something for a Pro Office?
It's a meal at Mc Donald for 3 persons
Yes, but 8 seats are 760$(!)...
Not sure V8 is worth that much to us, when we need to rely on other programs either way.
be it Maxwell Studio (since inserting high-poly props inside SU is a no-go) or Other Tools for UV Mapping.
Might as well consider a seat or two of Modo / C4D / Other and upgrade our Modeling Capabilities along the way.
We won't stop using SU (anytime soon). but as we read the map (and the developers answers)
our future and SU future is not heading in the same direction.On a side note, I'm all up for the notion of SU as a Platform - I Don't need Google to develop tools for SU.
I'd Happily PAY for Grade-A Ruby scripts (as I've done before). I think that this community is the true power behind SU.
But if it is a Platform - then be it A PLATFORM! (= Fast, Able to host Plugins/Render Engines, with a decent API & Tools for Developers)
Take a note from Android - Also by Google. Google hasn't developed 10% of the Apps on the Market.
But they sure as hell developed a SOLID PLATFORM. Can you imagine it come to a crawl when trying to use an App?
If this is a PRO product (and it sure has cost as one) - I expect it to Handle a PRO workflow and demands (eg. - High Poly Count).
I Really LOVE sketchup, but that's just the thing that annoys me the most -
I can see the HUGE potential (it can be a one-stop-shop for us as architects)
but it just doesn't get there. or even close to that. -
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
@jbacus said:
If you are an architect, it may be interesting to know that we have just granted you convenient access to Google's complete collection of geo-spatial imagery for more or less the entire world. In many parts of the world, you can now build a site model with accurate terrain, aerial and street-level photography and rough massing models for adjacent structures in minutes... without leaving your desk.
john
.Working for an architect I see this as a huge improvement as well. I was able to generate the entire site for a local airport we are working on in only minutes. Wow I say, wow.
It may seem that this release has been geared more for Google Earth but all the added functionality I will be able to use in my workflow and I have never contributed to Google Earth.
Although I might soon enough.lol
i used this one simple video to send to the homeoffice showing a site we're planning for and immediately received approval to upgrade to su8.Brilliant news!! Thanks very much John! I'm so pleased that I didn't buy 7.1 Pro. Well worth the wait!
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
@jbacus said:
If you are an architect, it may be interesting to know that we have just granted you convenient access to Google's complete collection of geo-spatial imagery for more or less the entire world. In many parts of the world, you can now build a site model with accurate terrain, aerial and street-level photography and rough massing models for adjacent structures in minutes... without leaving your desk.
john
.Working for an architect I see this as a huge improvement as well. I was able to generate the entire site for a local airport we are working on in only minutes. Wow I say, wow.
It may seem that this release has been geared more for Google Earth but all the added functionality I will be able to use in my workflow and I have never contributed to Google Earth.
Although I might soon enough.Accurate? Really? for A real project? Is it anything like USGS data? (I know it isn't like a survey, which is what you need in the end, but is it actually usable for schematics?) Does one have to use SU 8 to find this out?
-
@pbacot said:
Accurate? Really? for A real project? Is it anything like USGS data? (I know it isn't like a survey, which is what you need in the end, but is it actually usable for schematics?) Does one have to use SU 8 to find this out?
i haven't compared it to the survey and only checked the high and low points and yes, it was accurate enough for our needs.. afterall, i build skateboard parks so we're morphing the land to our vision..
i need a feel for the land so-to-speak and this feature gives it to me very easily. -
John, fancy going into partnership with Unity?
-
@thomthom said:
But I'm curious if SketchUp can be made LargeAddressAware, which would mean under 64bit OS it could address 4GB ram instead of 2.
What? Windows only allows you access to 2Gb? Insane. Immediately stop using such a lame OS.
-
@jbacus said:
@d12dozr said:
John,
I should have been more clear, I meant rendering with a plugin inside Sketchup. I use Twilight, I understand Vray and other render programs have similar trouble. Depending on model size, trouble can start at 2000 px.Thanks for replying.
Photorealistic rendering operations surely benefit from 64-bit processing. Rendering plugins do not have to execute rendering operations inside SketchUp's 32-bit environment, and can be built to run in their own 64-bit environment outside of the main SketchUp process. I think many of the more popular ones are already doing this.
john
.Thanks for the explanation, John. I appreciate your personal attention.
-
John, a lot of your answers seem to suggest that SU must remain elementary because it has a wide user base which includes those unfamiliar with more complicated 3d issues. That makes a lot of sense for the free version but less sense for the Pro version. Do you envision the Pro version incorporation more of those tools used by professionals, or do you feel that the current (small) gap between the free and Pro versions should be maintained?
-Brodie
-
@jbacus said:
@rv1974 said:
"No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." -Bill Gates, 1981
"64-bit processing will have no benefit" -John Bacus. 2010(sic!)
Be polite. I'm making a more complex point than you're giving me credit for making.
john
.=======
'I don't think ordinary users will see any benefit from a 64-bit SketchUp'-
http://www.deelip.com/?p=2643
Being responsible for your sayings\deeds (or lack of deeds)- that's what I'd call to be 'polite' -
@unknownuser said:
John, a lot of your answers seem to suggest that SU must remain elementary because it has a wide user base which includes those unfamiliar with more complicated 3d issues. That makes a lot of sense for the free version but less sense for the Pro version. Do you envision the Pro version incorporation more of those tools used by professionals, or do you feel that the current (small) gap between the free and Pro versions should be maintained?
-Brodie
UV mapping would be a very nice Pro tool. Would be a good selling point to get people to upgrade. Better that than taking away features, like DWG and North - that just gives out a negative signal.
I like the idea of SU Pro having some extra extensions that can be enabled.
But I'm still in the category of those that hope to see SU further developed as a platform. I love to be able to shape the app or features I use. Like Firefox.
-
@thomthom said:
@unknownuser said:
John, a lot of your answers seem to suggest that SU must remain elementary because it has a wide user base which includes those unfamiliar with more complicated 3d issues. That makes a lot of sense for the free version but less sense for the Pro version. Do you envision the Pro version incorporation more of those tools used by professionals, or do you feel that the current (small) gap between the free and Pro versions should be maintained?
-Brodie
UV mapping would be a very nice Pro tool. Would be a good selling point to get people to upgrade. Better that than taking away features, like DWG and North - that just gives out a negative signal.
I like the idea of SU Pro having some extra extensions that can be enabled.
But I'm still in the category of those that hope to see SU further developed as a platform. I love to be able to shape the app or features I use. Like Firefox.
You make a good point. Perhaps some of the current frustration is that we seem to be in a sort of middle ground. In the long run given what I know now, I think you're right that a platform scenario would probably be better. I'm not a programmer but based on what I've seen just a few of them do (you, Fredo, Whaat, TIG, etc.), it seems to me if that if they opened up the program to you we would be much better off. It may not solve the poly issues, but could greatly help things like UV tools, status bars, UI improvements, etc. Is that what you're thinking?
-Brodie
-
Yea. I'd be very happy if SU was developed as a platform where they [Google] worked on the core of the application and kept improving the API and SDK which would allow third party users to create custom fit environments for various speciality areas.
Entity A could develop a BIM solutiuon
Entity B could develop UV Tools
Entity C could develop landscaping tools
Entity D could develop gaming toolsIf you build an app for everyone you end up with a bug huge bloated beast where most users doesn't even use a fraction of the tools. But yet they'd pay a premium for all the features added. Like AutoCAD and that type off application.
But if you develop a core and a platform it can be moulded to fit each niche's use - and it could be developed by completely separate entities. That means parallel development for the platform you use where you pick and choose exactly what you want to use and you pay also only for what you use.
Much more agile than an include-the-kitchen-sink solution. -
Good assessment Tom, This structure would allow the development cost of the core application to stay reasonable. Google could even charge "api use" fees to those who generate profit from the sales of entities.
On the negative side, improperly done, there would be problems for those that have partial need out of several entities, as the overall cost, and overhead would then increase.
I think that it was smart on the part of Google to build separate applications like LO for SU Pro, allowing SU to remain an independent application. However, IMO it was a mistake to remove functions like Dxf/DwgIn from "SU free". SU free's Dxf/DwgIn functions should remain as provided by SU v7. SU Pro v8+'s Dxf/DwgIn/Out would be differentiated by adding additional support for surfaces, solids, textures, images, text, etc.
-
I agree, the tone is getting better. jbacus is listening and answering on a holiday weekend. That should speak for itself.
If you are unhappy with SU free, buy Pro. If you are making money off this program, buy Pro. We vote with our money. THAT is an effective way to keep SU going, not complaining. We need to be clear and specific about what direction or feature means something to us. I'm voting for better performance through OpenGL http://goo.gl/mod/vpGZ, dynamically linked files http://goo.gl/mod/uBBj, and a new program to sequence images fileshttp://goo.gl/mod/6JQZ. Let's stay constructive in our discussion. We may all get something out of it.
If SU can be the engine/platform that remains extensible and accessible, we can continue to grow the program in meaningful directions.
-
@jbacus said:
The old 'from Earth' method was actually providing you with considerably less detailed data. Particularly so in the case of the terrain data, which is now pulled directly from a shiny new terrain data service that gives you direct access to the best quality that Google has in your chosen location. As far as the imagery is concerned, the new "Add Location" UI gives you exactly what you see on the screen when you press the 'Grab' button. If you want more resolution in the imagery, zoom in.
john
.John,
In my view the new Add Location has a huge shortcoming compared with Get Current View. It does not allow the user to align the view rectangle to the building etc. That becomes an issue when using the snapshot to texture built-up terrain. It means the file size will be up to twice as large as it would be if the view could be aligned.
Given that the new interface has the 4 push-pins, surely it would have been a simple matter to allow the user to rotate the rectangle defined by those pins.
-
@jpac said:
If you are unhappy with SU free, buy Pro. If you are making money off this program, buy Pro. We vote with our money. THAT is an effective way to keep SU going, not complaining.
I'm underwhelmed by the release of SU8 Free. I've played around with it for a little bit, and I do think the introduction of colour imagery from GE is a good thing and the process will be made easier, but I don't think there's very much to be excited by.
But tbh the suggestion that people unhappy with SU8 Free should then go on buy the even more underwhelming SU8 Pro is utterly ridiculous. I'm disappointed by SU8 Free and wish it could have been better, but there's no way on earth that I'd toss Google $500 in the hope that the extra sales will spur them to make improvements. I don't think the world works like that. I think if Google knows they'll get enough sales with minor improvements then that's all they'll do. The best way to "vote with our money" is to not buy the pro version because then the message will be driven home that it doesn't offer enough for $500/$100 update fee/
-
@unknownuser said:
But tbh the suggestion that people unhappy with SU8 Free should then go on buy the even more underwhelming SU8 Pro is utterly ridiculous. I'm disappointed by SU8 Free and wish it could have been better, but there's no way on earth that I'd toss Google $500 in the hope that the extra sales will spur them to make improvements. I don't think the world works like that. I think if Google knows they'll get enough sales with minor improvements then that's all they'll do. The best way to "vote with our money" is to not buy the pro version because then the message will be driven home that it doesn't offer enough for $500/$100 update fee/
Thank you. This perfectly articulates my point about things.
Advertisement