Google is Listening!
-
@pep75 said:
...but needs to be standard in SU to become a "decent" architectural tool.
Those tools are surely very useful and should not be missing in an architectural program, but SketchUp is not [only] an architectural visualisation tool, if it is supposed to be an all-purpose 3D app for everyone, we have to accept that.
Would we like SketchUp to be bloated with tools that we don't need, because someone might need them? We should understand the plugins as part of SketchUp's featureset (although not developed by Google), but surely they are neither hacks nor workarounds but mature tools except that they are not in the default installation. -
@pep75 said:
Where's the bezier tool? Where's the push-pull tool on non-flat surfaces? Where is the bevel/chamfer tool? Where is the bend tool? Where is the Subdivide and Smooth tool? All tools that are essential in SketchUp and that are made by plugin developers, but needs to be standard in SU to become a "decent" architectural tool.Okay, I'm a teacher in architecture and at the moment I really doubt to suggest students to work with SU. It stucks to be a tool with a "freeware" abilities....I'm sorry to say, but organic architecture is still almost undo-able in SU...It's a shame because the UI of SU is UNIQUE...
Well we have the plugins and they work and we should be glad we didn't have to wait for the SU team to implement them.
I do agree that some measure of integration for some of those vital functions should be added to the core SU, but knowing some of those plugins you should be more aware that organic modeling can be achieved and I don't think having the same exact functions as the plugins, natively inside SU, improves modeling in any way, maybe only stability and relibility.
I'm not an architectural expert by any means but I don't see any insurmountable obstacle in doing organic architecture with SU, it may not be perfect or 100% accurate but I think most stuff is doable and you should try harder or let your students find they're own solutions, I think you'll be amazed.I do understand your view, I too feel a little disappointed at the level of innovation in the new releases and also the direction they took, but having said that, the new improvements are ok and dare I say it...a bit cool.
-
I love SU, been in love with it since the day it found me, back in version 4 or somthing.......
SU is a great "sketch and modelling" software wich has a lot of great features, and with the superb induviduals that makes all the amazing plugins, taking sketchup to new heights.
I want to reverse the question and say: Where do GOOGLE want to take Skectchup ?? A better 3d modelling program for Design, architecture and engineering, or a free software easy to use for everyone so we can make a model of our houses and post it on google earth ?? Or are trying to have it both ways ??
I understand i write this a little black/white and sarcastic, but U`ll get the idea of the question....
I dont want to offend anyone with this question, i just want to know google`s point of view of SU future.
I still love SU and use it every day for work and for fun, will allways use it due to the greaaat plugins showing up... It`s like christmas every so often. so i cant lay it to rest, just have to wait and see what comes up next in the plugin forum.
-
@aerilius said:
Does the Ruby API allow to set a color value to a pixel of a texture? Or to reload a texture image very fast?
#1 - Yes and no. I worked through the PNG specification and have an .rb library (that works with zlib.so) to read .png pixels. It's a matter of converting XYZ to UV to get the (approximate) pixel at a pick point in the model. That, and time for Ruby to read a .png
#2 - I have an as-yet-unreleased plugin for this. It needs a bit of polish yet.
-
I guess this post is aimed at two people- thomthom and jbacus.
Using uv tools for instance. Thomthom, I know you've been messing around with uv mapping in su ruby a lot but as I understand it, there isn't enough access(?) for you to fully do what you need to do.
What would you need in order to develop the necessary plugin to deal with proper uv mapping?Then at JB, suppose Thomas would like something added to the api, is it just a matter of you allowing more access or do you have to do more than that to let him have at it? I'm sure there is a point where you reach sensitive material limits on how much access you can give but I'm just curious as to how this process works.
-
The tone of this conversation has now reached the correct balance. Developers and end users agreeing to mutually work towards a common goal. I clearly remember sitting in a bar in California watching Justin Chin (MonsterZERO) show some of his amazing work and his workflow to several of us beta testers. Todd Burch was present and you had an end user showing his "made up" methodology to accomplish a desired task (rigging) and a developer Todd saying things like we could do that series of manual tasks with ruby. It was great to be present when the people who have the experience and knowledge on both sides of a teeter-totter are working together >>SU is the support in the middle<< The users are on one side and the developers are on the other. It's a balancing act The developers must not be too heavy and the users must not be too heavy. John put it very eloquently when he noted that there is a continuous need to improve hardware and software to meet the demands of the user but as soon as a user has the software and the hardware to meet his current needs he or she promptly pushes the boundaries beyond their current needs and hardware and software are forced to expand yet again (it's a viscous cycle).
Lets just be thankful that we are all here and have a voice in this cycle. Are all the ideas, requests, improvements, etc. going to happen...did all of your plans for your life come true...NOPE. I for one have about 999,000 dollars to go to make my goal of becoming a millionare...hehe.
Maybe John could release a SU retrospective video showing snippets of the development of Sketchup through the ages. I Started using it in version 1 so I remember many of the milestones that were made. It's helpful to know where you have been in determining where you want to go.
-
sr. jbacus
I just want to ask a question.
why not make more complete the four most powerful tools of sketchup?in sketchup 8 pushpull 2.0 updated, but very few improvements.Why?
why not add more features?
plugins exist, but works best native pushpullfor example:
conical pushpull
pushpull to multiple preselectd faces
vector pushpull
Pushpull outside group
use "Shift+one click mouse" for Redo same Push Pull[flash=853,505:11pd0pbv]http://www.youtube.com/v/y0GiUThzwoI&fs=1[/flash:11pd0pbv]
please make sketchup tools most complete, would help me work better and faster
would appreciate your response.
-
Diego-Rodriguez Thanks for the informative post. You show some useful Rubies I was not aware of.
I think the Idea of extending core functionality of SU to incorporate Successfully implemented Ruby programs is a great Idea. I'm not sure about the Process and or the ability of Google to simply adopt functionality that was created by third party developers though.
John are there examples of Native SU functionality that originated from outside companies. I believe that the whole Dynamic components addition came about in this fashion if I am not mistaken.
-
[edit] @diego
And do that to everything then we'll have a thousand tools to navigate
I'd much rather see this done through plugins. Maybe in a more manageable set up than now but please, don't add all that stuff to core sketchup.
I'm willing to guess that even the su programmers are surprised with what's happen via ruby. A management system or depot etc weren't even being thought of as necessary at the beginning but we're still doing things the same way as when ruby was first implemented. I'm sure the suteam has already began discussing ideas etc about plugin development but just in case, I'll put my 2 cents in saying I think they should. -
At LadyBugz (Carolyn):
Why are postings tagged as inappropriate and the author not informed of why and by whom?
Does anyone have the capability of tagging a posting as inappropriate?
-
@unknownuser said:
Using uv tools for instance. Thomthom, I know you've been messing around with uv mapping in su ruby a lot but as I understand it, there isn't enough access(?) for you to fully do what you need to do.
What would you need in order to develop the necessary plugin to deal with proper uv mapping?As for UV mapping directly there isn't much that we don't have access to. But UV mapping isn't all that trivial to get right.
However, we do lack the ability to determine if a material on a face is set to Projected, and we also lack the ability to set the Projected property - which would make things easier, and cooler.
Then there is the thing around it, it would help if we could draw bitmaps onto the SU viewport to make good previews of the texture, or make a UI like that native SU texture tool where you move pins around. Can do without it, but it's just no fun imagining the images...I'll see if I can post a preview video of my experiments soon.
-
@unknownuser said:
Then at JB, suppose Thomas would like something added to the api, is it just a matter of you allowing more access or do you have to do more than that to let him have at it? I'm sure there is a point where you reach sensitive material limits on how much access you can give but I'm just curious as to how this process works.
I don't think it's always as easy as connecting a wire from A to B to hook up Ruby API access, some features could be hidden deeper inside some other code. The Ruby API was retro-fit into SU at version 4, wasn't it?
-
@jclements said:
At LadyBugz (Carolyn):
Why are postings tagged as inappropriate and the author not informed of why and by whom?Does anyone have the capability of tagging a posting as inappropriate?
Postings here at SCF or at Google's pages?
-
Everybody is right. But that was not my point. I think, that Google IS developing more and more tools(what also can be done by plugins....?!) for their Google Earth project and put them in SU.
I think Ruby IS a great option to make a good piece of software better, and I'm glad we have that option. But what I wanted to say is that I'm missing just ESSENTIAL modeling tools, that can also be integrated in the existing tools(for instance; selecting a line an use PushPull on it..). And, off course (to Marian), I know that you can model anything with Sketchup...but there are tools that can do it a LOT faster. I think Google must come up with different versions, that's all. I LOVE plugins!!! But the core of the concept must be good to...especially when you market your software on architectural academies.... -
@unknownuser said:
[edit] @diego
And do that to everything then we'll have a thousand tools to navigate
no. More tools not.
I just meant the possibility of integrating more functions to the same tool. pushpull to be more complete.
I think skechup not have to add more tools only support to developers and improve the current core.
but, the tools rotate, scale, follow me, move, pushpull and offset. have to be more complete. may be the video options or other.
sketchup all functions must be improved. but not add new tools -
It'd be neat for Instance if say joint push pull could be available via plugin but it ties itself in some way to push/pull.
ie- if I choose to add jpp to my system, I could assign a modifier key to regular push pull in order to activate it. Or maybe a flyout toolbar that If I click and hold push/pull, my other options pop out but the UI in general remains clean unless I decide to clutter it up with options I choose.If someone makes a selection tool ruby, it could attach itself to select etc.
-
Right Diego, I was talking about what you are. Not making new tools per se but adding new functions to the existing ones. You're still going to have to activate the new features in some form or another be it a toolbar, menus, modifier keys etc. However it would be done, there is going to be a whole lot more to navigate. It's going to be a mess.
I would like exactly one of the functions you mentioned to be in SU. Some might want more, some even less.Point being, I would like to customize to suit my needs. That's why the plugin system works so well (or, could work so well)
I mean, I have a few ideas that would help me work faster but I don't expect them to be in core sketchup. You probably wouldn't like my ideas so why should they be cluttering up your screen?
-
Jeff, I really like your idea of pluging (like JPP) tying into native SU tools. I just recently made the switch from Firefox to Chrome and I wish that SU would take a lot of lessons from Chrome. The extensions (plugins) are really well integrated, cleanly fit into the UI, and are extremely easy to install. Firefox was getting a bit clunky in the UI with various plugins added and had to restart everytime you added a new one. I don't mean to make this a browser discussion of course, but I just mean to point out another product made by Google which has gotten right a lot of what people are asking for.
Another idea along the same vein, which I got from Chrome as well, would be a built in Sync function which would Sync between multiple computers using your Google login. It could sync shortcut keys, preferences, plugins, default template, materials, etc.
-Brodie
-
@jclements said:
At LadyBugz (Carolyn):
Why are postings tagged as inappropriate and the author not informed of why and by whom?
Does anyone have the capability of tagging a posting as inappropriate?Hi John,
Looking into this for you– folks are a bit slow getting back from the holiday weekend this morning. I think your posts were marked as 'inappropriate' because they included multiple ideas in a single post. You should post again, but please only one idea per post.
john
. -
If google is listening, then let’s talk to google !
I think that everyone (mostly) around here, will be agree to say that what makes the attractive force of SketchUp was Innovation, and that concept left the program sometimes ago, sadly.
What I mean is that there are many way to make things in the same time more rich, while keeping them simple.
Actually, when someone says on the forum “we should add this function”, I'm really sad to see that there is always someone to respond “no, no, keep sketchup simple”... that classical answer clearly shows that there’s no innovative research in term of interface going on.For example, let’s continue to talk about the “push pull” tool, the emblematic one.
At first, it was only made to extrude simple faces, and that was a genius approach. But as usage evolves, people are facing new situations, and have, in that case, to push pull far more than just a face : a complex surface, a series of non attached faces, a line, and so on. So, Ruby developers have create tools, separately, that respond efficiently to each problematic.To me, Ruby tools like that should only be necessary as a kind of transition element, before an upgrade that resolve the problem they were pointing (and I say that with great great respect to all the Ruby developers... their work would be more interesting if they didn’t have to fight everytime with originally unsolved problems).
So, in the case of the “push pull”, in 2010 it should be a kind of multipurpose and intelligent tool, that is able to extrude about everything, regarding to the context. It will greatly help new user, by assisting their hand efficiently, and it will boost the productivity of pro user by reducing the amount of operation necessary to make one simple action.
It's really strange to see that no one is ever mentioning the fact that the base of SketchUp could evolve...SketchUp way of handling situation is not some kind of sacred text. The original set of tool was good when it was released, many years ago, but it have to evolve. Creating new function does not mean adding modified old tools to the program, but rethinking the way the original funtion was working....and that should be the job of the developers (no offense...).
I don't like to talk about others software, but programs like Inventor Fusion or spaceclaim, try to find new approach, by making the program more clever, in order to make things more simple, while still really powerful.I’m aware that research and development are an expensive process, that’s why I agree on a previous post, that call for a bigger gap between pro and free version (sorry...).
So, thank you Google for you’re attention ( it sounds so cool to say that...), and please, give to sketchup the means to be the application it could (and should) be !
Advertisement