Anti-SketchUp! Snobbery [or Ignorance?]

chrisglasier

The sad thing about this attitude is that it is not based on either knowledge or experience, purely habit.

While I think this is true on the surface the underlying cause is protectionism - much in the same way as church services and prescriptions used to be in Latin and computer programming in Fortran. Sometime soon html and javascript will do everything we need to achieve using machine rather than paper-like processes. Elites will be defined by levels of creativity.

Well it's Sunday ...

Edit: ... and another Toffler quote for good measure:

"Idea-assassins rush forward to kill any new suggestion on the grounds of its impracticality, while defending whatever now exists as practical, no matter how absurd."

flyashy

Forget clients, I've even had architects scoff at me working in skecthup, until I prove them wrong by producing far better work in far lesser time. (In fact I have converted a few architectural practices to sketchup where I consult, they gave up on their precious 3Dmax!)
I think most people are not aware how genuinely intuitive it is to work in sketchup, because either they have not tried it seriously or never knew the Ruby Scripts.
I find Sketchup the only software that lets me 'Design' as opposed to 'Draft', and that says it all!
Just my two bit

wilsonbuilt78

I have noted the sales strategy of Autodesk etc with some disgust at my local university.

Essentially a bunch of clueless, impressionable students get a "free" version of some incredibly complicated expensive software. They think they are scoring becuase clearly they have got something of great value for nothing, they then proceed like good little consumers to invest the enourmous amount of time it takes to learn do even the most basic design work in this "free" software. By the time they leave school and are ready to go to work they have to believe that all the effort they have made to learn a particular package is worth something and therefore feel obliged to buy the useless piece of crud or go work for someone(read:previously suckered student) that puts a value to their investment in it.

This process is something akin to handing out free cigarretes to schoolchildren as far as I am concerned. The fact that universities accept sponsorship from these predatory companies so that they can flog their dubious wares is a scandal to my mind.

It also explains the attitude that these "suckers" have to sketchup. To them its like a slap in the face being shown that they have been duped and the emporer actually doesn't have clothes on. Nobody wants to be told that they have made the wrong choice especially after they have invested so much in it.

The fact is no other 3D software competes with the returns on investment you get with SU. First off it costs almost nothing to purchase and you only do that when you are actually seeing financial returns already, secondly it takes so little time to learn how to do usefull stuff with it that you cant really lose even if you only use it a little. Finally if you do choose to invest a lot of time and go and install all the extensions which make it brilliant in your particular field chances are you will find it just as powerfull as anything out there.

Just dont try and tell someone who is already hooked on some other package that-they just dont want to hear it!

jason_maranto

I'm not sure about all of this. I am deeply conflicted about SketchUp because I do know it so well, but I'm also equally aware of the competitions strengths. I cannot tolerate elitists snobs, but at the same time I find it difficult to entirely dismiss their dislike of Sketchup as unfounded (or based on jealousy, etc.).

It's true there are no perfect modeling packages, and it is also true that most pro packages cost more than SketchUp Pro -- however there are free alternatives that beat SketchUp free in terms of sheer power (I can name several), and also a few that beat SketchUp free in terms of intuitive interface (although they lack some power).

So I think the thing to bear in mind is while SketchUp is good (not great) for what it is, it is very limited (even with free ruby plugins to flesh it out)... to make it suit a power modelers needs needs you really need to purchase pay plugins (several come to mind). And by the time you do that along with purchase pro you will find that it becomes much closer in price to more powerful applications.

I feel the only real strength that SketchUp has over the competition at this point is the large and active user base -- which really compensates for most of the glaring weaknesses of the software by delivering work-arounds, tips, and plugins (often free of charge)... and also the 3rd party vendors who also prop up the weaknesses of the software (often for profit).

This lack of real power may (and hopefully will) change in the future due to the intervention of Trimble -- but it could just as easily not. Part of that is due to the fact that the dev team has made it very clear that they do not see SketchUp as a solution for power modelers... so it's inevitable that the best will eventually outgrow the package, or at the very least supplement it with other packages. Bender seems to be the popular choice for this here, I personally made different choices, but the end result is the same: SketchUps limitations force users to embrace other software to grow.

Best,
Jason.

pbacot

Jason,

In your opinion,then, what's the natural progression to another modeller for architectural work? (given ease of use and reasonable cost--not talking about Gehry buildings or skyscrapers...)

I don't encounter it, but it seems a lot of the "snobbery" people are noting is not from modellers or based on power. Few would argue the idea there's a lack there.

Peter

jason_maranto

Well that's the sticky wicket isn't it -- I don't really do Architectural stuff, or at least not traditional stuff (more sci-fi/fantasy)... so I could not say what an architectural person would say for sure.

However I'm of the mindset that good modeling is good modeling, and usually when I get past the "anti-SketchUp snobbery" I encounter elsewhere I often find underneath is a solid reason for disliking SketchUp. Namely the geometry that SketchUp creates is not terribly good in many cases (sometimes the fault of the program, but often the fault of the modeler using it)... and when those users are forced to deal with SketchUp made geometry in other apps it is frustrating (to say the least). The same complaints are often made about Revit, but since I don't know anything about that software I cannot confirm.

Now to be fair it IS called "SketchUp", and one would think the choice of name is purposely telling you that this is meant more for "Sketches", rather than high-end models (and results often bear that out).

I'm not into undermining this forum with talking too much about specific competing products, but I will say that after spending considerable time with the latest version of form.Z I found it to be much more powerful than SketchUp Pro, even with a slew of free and paid plugins... it is often used for architectural work, and the price is not far off from Pro.

My reservations about that software really came down to some odd UI things I wanted sorted out before I tried to teach it -- If I was using it only for personal work I would have purchased for sure, but I didn't want to spend the first 2 hours of my course explaining how to customize the UI... I prefer to cover those topics after the student has a understanding of how to use the tools, so they can customize with their own workflow in mind, rather than blindly follow my lead. So my intention was to include some UI presets to get through the bulk of the course quickly, but they were having issues with monitors of differing resolutions on some operating systems exploding the UI (think SketchUp toolbars problem but worse).

Personally, for the work I am more likely to do, I think I would prefer Modo, but that software has some issues of it's own -- I decided to hold off there due to a relatively underdeveloped/immature API for 3rd party plugins (namely my render engine). And I didn't choose MoI (my other top choice) for the same reason (non-existent API).

My other main 3D related softwares are geared more towards organics and high-end textures . As it stands I'm am taking the "wait and see" approach with how things pan out with Trimble -- if things don't move in a direction I like I will make a switch at that time... I can say for sure that I already really hate the decision to do an Autodesk-like annual release (SketchUp 2013... lame).

Best,
Jason.

pbacot

Right. Form-Z has been an architectural staple for a long time. That makes sense.

charly2008

Hi,

Arise to leave the wrong impression, I love Sketchup. I also see it not in competition with other 3D CAD programs.

I think Sketchup has its small place in the field of 3D visualization for architectural objects.

For this purpose, the program was designed for and nothing else. For use in the planning of major industrial and architectural projects, the program has simply not the necessary tools.

That we also can design and visualize other complex objects in Sketchup, is largely due to the Ruby programmers. We also know that SketchUp has its limitations, for example in terms of high-resolution objects. I am also not worried about what others think about Sketchup. If anyone can use the program in his professional environment, it has served its purpose. Only the result counts. And we Hobbyists are happy that we have a tool with which we can implement our ideas virtually.

I think in technical or architectural projects the 3D visualization represents only a fraction of the whole project work. I think that is one of the reasons that many professionals pay less attention to Sketchup.

I also think "Trimble" will see Sketchup only as a complement, for the visualization of objects in his own programs. I can not imagine that "SketchUp" is further developed into a super modeling tool. Rather Trimble will try, to integrate the program into its own existing programs as a visualization tool.

Sorry if my english is not so perfect.

Charly

raineysky

Charly,

Good post and your English is very good.

sonder

Well I couldn't disagree more. I find sketchup and layout far more powerful for architectural applications than acad. I learned cad starting on version 2.3. My last version I used was adt4 (version 2004). I am officially done with ACAD. it is a program that is cumbersome not only in its user interface, but in its internal programming. While I do mainly projects under 10,000 sf, I would have no hesitation taking on large scale projects.

Jackson

God that is pathetic.

What do they offer as an alternative?

SU

Pros
-Fast
-Cheap (Free)You can learn the basics in 4 hours
-Decent native real-time WYSIWYG shadow rendering
-Fantastic import & export options
-Open source options (ruby)
-Very easy material editor and UV mapping
-Makes working in 3D totally natural before easily exporting to boring old 2D for Cds
-Now has many options for excellent render plugins, Podium, Maxwell, VRay
-Developers (at least on the @last side of things) are very nice people
-Fast
-Fast
-Fast

Cons
-Doesn't handle curved geometry well
-Stupid childish name
-Ehm..... it's addictive? Hang on, I think that's a Pro.

Autocad

Pros
-Industry standard (thanks to monopolistic, abusive marketing)
-Reasonably fast for producing 2D CDs.
-Ehm... I'll come back to this.

Cons
-Did I say reasonably fast? I meant slow- I can model details in 3D in SU faster than I can draw them in 2D in Autocad.
-Extremely expensive and anachronistically so- most professional software has dropped dramatically in price in the last few years, but Acad has reluctantly crept very slowly down.
-Takes days to learn the basics.
-The software has barely changed in 7 years, yet every version makes previous versions obselete forcing the entire industry to upgrade.

Autodesk. (There's some swearing for you Jon). They only have contempt for their customers, laughing all the way to the bank every time they release a "new" version and take their customers' money all over again.
3D is an afterthought and God, does it show.

If anyone would like to do a pros and cons list for other software, eg 3DMax (you have to meditate for 7 years, become one with the universe and pray to the God of Horrible UIs and Insane Bugs before you're allowed to progress to Level 1). I'd love to see what these "We hate SU" gonks would use instead. They're obviously just bitter because they spent years learning software which has now become more or less obselete (see my post on the Pro User Forum re: an article in the Architect's Journal about huge architecture firms using SU extensively).

@lapx said:

These are stubborn architects that think they know with out even trying to use the software what the program is capable of. I have tried to convinced the office that su is more that just drawing pretty 3d models. Su as Bob says can be incorporated in every phase of the project including CD's. I got this question today- "Is it as acurate as autocad?Can you use to do cd's?"...I just wanted to SCREAM!!!The only reason why I'm complaining is because I know how much more productive our office could be if they would fully embrace and push the software to its limits.

I've been fortunate enough to introduce SU to 2 offices who after a little persuasion (this was before the free version came out) embraced it completely.
We do our building surveys, sketch designs, planning applications, export 2D sections for building warrant and construction documents all in SketchUp, safe in the knowledge that the SU model is 100% accurate (if I made it ) which means all the BW and CD drawings will be accurate and consistent. We even occasionally print off perpectives or axonometrics of complex details for contractors if they're struggling with visualising them. We have been able to take on about twice as much work with the same workforce as we are now so efficient. AND we have freed up time to spend on promotion, marketing, research and competitions. Win win.

kalli

Those of you who might have some issues with SKP need to take a look at the UTUBE videos Nick Sonder has put up recently. His work says it all. From a developer as well as contractors standpoint - he's "nailed" his field. If you can't "build" from his work, then go home and change professions.

In addition, almost every other poster here has had something valuable to say. Do the "traditional (architectural) industry / practitioners" feel threatened, etc? No doubt. Can you imagine what AutoDesk and others have spent?

Having said that: The team of consultants / engineers / developers and builders we work with ? They could give a whit about "what' is used to create the end product. Millions of dollars are in play on these projects - literally (we're very, very lucky to have the work we have and, we try to appreciate it with frank, "humbleness" and, give thanks every single day).

In our work team, all manor programs are used, interfaced, etc. AutoCad does some great things and, quite quickly in the hands of talented (note "talented") user. Same for SolidWorks and several other programs mentioned. Frankly, it's all about the job and clear communications to the "end user" - be it design engineer, structural engineer, MEP folks, the client or whomever. We've never had a client with a seven-or-eight figure project say "how did you come up with that image or make those drawings?" They're busy, they want visuals, and most want them NOW. We've found that SKP delivers.

Too, we've received a number of project files from the "biggest and the (supposedly) best in the business). What we've had come across the threshold is truly, in some instances, unbelievably bad.

Remember: It's not the tool, it's the operator. Never forget that. If you're client has a problem with how you dig the ditch, hand him the shovel. Better yet, (if you can afford it) pass on that client; we've almost always found that, that type of client is trouble down the road. As for "balky" consultants that have too many "opinions." I flat out tell them: "they can always find their payslip elsewhere."