What will SketchUp Free and Pro look like in 2013?
-
@mitcorb said:
Hi, andybot:
You mention that you use Blender for architecture. I would be interested in how you might go about doing precision modeling in specific units, such as feet and inches. Or, do you do some kind of proportional conversions?I don't model regularly in Blender for that very reason. I model in SU and bring it into Blender. It's quite a nice workflow with the help of TIG's obj exporter, everything comes in at the correct scale. I do most everything else in Blender, things like "loop cut and slide" are just phenomenal, UV editing is a dream, 64bit environment is night and day vs. SU, and many more delightful functionalities.
-
@jason_maranto said:
I don't do straight architectural modeling so I couldn't say -- but I have recently modeled the exact same complex mechanical structures in several modeling applications and found SketchUp much slower for me (especially as the poly count rises), and generally incapable of even making the forms without 3rd party plugins.
I hear the refrain "it is not the right tool for that" being thrown about... so I guess the "3D for everyone" is also a mislabeling. I mean that phase says SketchUp is meant to be a general modeler -- not an "architectural sketching" specialist.
I forgot to throw in Solidworks in my previous list. I would say that would be the best tool for "complex mechanical structures." Once things have lots of curves, I find the usability of SU goes right out the window, both in the ability to handle lots of faces as well as lack of precision control over curve generation.
-
Yes exactly Andy. When you described Blender versus SU you actually summarised the major problems. If you take SU for Architectural sketching only (planar forms) than I would agree that in terms of quick modelling it is unsurpassed. Going anywhere deeper than that, as it stands, it is no no. A lot of people describe SU as a previz tool and maybe we should accept that SU is no more than that.
(Let us hope that Trimble will come with shiny new 64 bit core...sigh) -
@jason_maranto said:
SketchUp is meant to be a general modeler -- not an "architectural sketching" specialist.
Well, I can't agree with that.
Just look at the section planes, the walkthrough fonctions, the matchphoto, the geo-accurate sun, the two-points perspective, the Google Earth integration, the sandbox (for terrains), Layout, dimensions, even some icons are clearly designed for architecture (Views), etc...So yeah, it may be used for general modeling, but its main purpose is architecture.
-
I became aware of Sketchup toward the "end" of version 5. Back then, I recall it being billed as a program "designed by architects for architects". But it is obviously more versatile than that.
-
I guess they should not have changed that v5 tagline then, since it's quite obvious that SketchUp isn't a great choice of general modeling app compared to the vast majority of pro modeling apps.
The only real modeling tools we got in v8 was a half-hearted attempt at "solids" and Boolean functions -- which doesn't even work well without additional 3rd-party plugins. "Upgrades" like that are never going to make SketchUp competitive... but I'm not expecting any better from John, his track record speaks for itself.
BTW, This is something I realized long ago -- I'm not saying anything I don't already know ... as I've said before I already have one foot out the door. I'm just waiting for final confirmation (upon release of 2013) before I close the door.
If SketchUp becomes a true dedicated AEC app then I'm OK with that, but I have no use for a such a thing -- and I think they are currently doing themselves a disservice by pretending to be something they are clearly not (a general purpose 3D modeling application).
Best,
Jason. -
It was probably just a slogan made up by Google, as a take off on Apple's "Computer for the rest of us". But the fact remains, it was obvious what AtLast made it for and what Google wanted it for. Also obvious that it has not changed that much, nor has Google ever added organic functions etc. unless you count solid tools. If people found it handy for other things then so be it.
Of course on that vein SU has also fallen down, unless you consider it a given that you must export to other programs to add enough polygons to finish the Archviz job.
-
I do wonder how much of that sentiment is driven by the fact that you all use it for architecture? It seems logical that your perspective would be heavily biased due to your desired output.
I would be curious what users from other disciplines have to say about this...
Regardless, to fairly evaluate the program you have to remove all plugins and then consider its utility in your workflow... I would hazard a guess that even the hard-core "architectural sketching" crowd would find this program laughably unusable without their pet plugins. That is as strong of a condemnation as I can think of for how badly the Sketchup dev team has fallen down on the job.
Best,
Jason. -
Isn't the Ruby API a more or less equal sort of feature? Ruby scripting is more than Ruby developers hacking and entering the backyard of SketchUp (with the SketchUp team lazy and doing nothing), all the plugins require an API that needs to be created in the first place. Compare SketchUp's API with what other softwares offer, it's one of the more versatile and well designed ones. That means the SketchUp team did evolve SketchUp a lot while developing the API, and if they hadn't done that, they would have spend the same time on a poor selection of native tools.
-
I guess you can look at the Ruby API as either half-full or half-empty. On the one hand it has some real issues that are holding up 3rd party development, on the other hand if it didn't exist at all SketchUp would be near useless.
I can safely say however that it is not exceptional in any way -- many other 3D software have equal or better APIs... with the most exceptional feature being the ease of accessibility Ruby provides as the language (versus C++ or similar). However there are drawbacks to that choice as well...
I'll never say anything against the 3rd party developers -- they have worked wonders with SketchUp and they are the only reason why the software is remotely usable for me. In all my tutorial videos I made sure to point out some examples of the many plugins available here. However there are many things beyond their control, and SketchUp's performance issues is one of them.
I'm also really tired of half-baked "features" in new releases -- "solid" tools that aren't, and a "toolbar fix" that isn't, are just a few examples of some of them gems we've had to pay for... I hold John responsible for this since he is the lead. However, I also give him credit for Layout since he was lead on that too -- but I do wonder how so little of the advanced elements of Layout (relative to SketchUp) have failed to make it into SketchUp.
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
I do wonder how much of that sentiment is driven by the fact that you all use it for architecture? It seems logical that your perspective would be heavily biased due to your desired output.
I would be curious what users from other disciplines have to say about this...
Given the fact that Sketchup was design for architecture, it seems fair that the most important point of view is the architects' one.
Without its plugins, SU is still a wonderful tool for developping architecture designs, though obviously less powerfull. And I would still use it for my projects.
I think its real strength is not in the plugins, but in the deep core basis. Its engine.
Plugins are just awesome bonus
(BTW, sorry for my poor english, I'm french...)
-
I think your english is very good -- so no worries there
On the issue of plugin-less SketchUp used for Architectural designs -- I could buy that, but only if you are working with a very specific type of architecture (square boxy)...
As soon as you get into more organic structures the native tools fall woefully short (both in terms of performance and utility) -- not to mention if you do interiors you are going to need furnishings which are often too "organically" shaped for SketchUp native tools to create satisfactorily.
At that point you could import them from another app, but where would you be without something like ThomThom's CleanUp? Furthermore why should something like that even be a 3rd party invention? These types of tools should have been made by the development team in the first place -- part of the reason other packages often don't have as many plugins is because there is less need for them since the development teams did their job properly.
I also don't buy the architects POV as being the most important one here -- better general modeling tools and capabilities benefit all users equally... there is absolutely no reason to be against SketchUp developing better general modeling functionality.
Best,
Jason. -
I agree with you about the organic modeling without plugins in SU. But you should know that organic architecture is a niche, really. Look around you, do you see this type of buildings very often ?
And still, there are pluginsThough, I don't agree about the whole "square-boxy" thing. You can do much more than that in naked SU. We are not limited to ortho modeling, we can do diagonals, and some type of curves like circles or ellipses. And everything else is just a clever combination of these (Except organic, of course)
Just look at some modern buildings in your city, and wonder if you can do them in sketchup.@jason_maranto said:
I also don't buy the architects POV as being the most important one here -- better general modeling tools and capabilities benefit all users equally... there is absolutely no reason to be against SketchUp developing better general modeling functionality.
I think nobody is against that !
Here we are arguing about what you said : That SU is near useless and can't compete with other 3D softwares.
My first contribution to this thread was about SU's speed. -
Yes, in modern architecture (which I often find sterile and unappealing) you find those shapes less, but in classical architecture more often in the ornamentation (which is often very sculptural/organic) than you might notice at first.
Any architectural stuff I do is more sci-fi or fantasy oriented so obviously I'm going to be more influenced by the very old or very futuristic architecture -- and tend to ignore everyday styles.
When I said near useless I meant in terms of comparable native capabilities with other general modeling application -- which has been my foundational stance for quite some time... I want SketchUp to become a competitive general modeling application. Anything less than that is unacceptable to me...
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
Yes, in modern architecture (which I often find sterile and unappealing) you find those shapes less, but in classical architecture more often in the ornamentation (which is often very sculptural/organic) than you might notice at first
Yeah, well, like you say : That's ornementation, not architecture !
-
@jason_maranto said:
Yes, in modern architecture (which I often find sterile and unappealing).... .
Steady now...
-
SketchUp is now part of the Trimble Buildings group...
@unknownuser said:
The new group will leverage the Trimble Design-Build-Operate (DBO) platform of organic and acquired technologies to develop and bring to market a new portfolio of synergistic technologies for capital construction owners and Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) service providers. Trimble Buildings will provide the organizational infrastructure to fuel innovation and allow current and future customers to take advantage of the rapidly evolving technology landscape to maximize overall business value.”
...i think if you look at what Trimble has bought in the last year you'll develop a full picture of the direction SketchUp will take.
It will at least play nice with its partners. But I don't see all these guys sitting down together and figuring out how will they all work together. File formats dictate that type of situation. Since all geometry holds some level of data I can see SU becoming more aware in it's exporting/importing functions and maybe adding some further attributes that translate to these other partner platforms. How the data is packaged and sent so that when opened elsewhere it will identify with these attributes. A type of meta-data I suppose. But I'm no expert on how file formats and building management systems crunch this data. But I think that Trimble sees a need for SU to be part of its BDO platform and that end users will need to transition from one to the other without many flowblockers.
I definitely don't see SU needing to add an all singing all dancing UV mapping tool when they already exist or various other tools you often hear members asking for. It's a users responsibility to create a workflow pipeline that suits them if you use SU outside it's normal operating environment.
If SU isn't in that pipeline then no big deal. But asking the team to keep adding more features because your workflow is not allowing you to do things fast or efficiently enough means you have outgrown the product and your skillset/workflow is beyond SU's capabilities. You need a new tool. Happy days....you're skillset will grow even further making you an even more attractive proposition for clients/employers etc....
As regards SU vanilla. Its a good tool. It handles geometry different to other apps and can introduce bad modeling habits but in terms of UX it definitely trumps other apps.
BTW, this is the tagline that I associate with SketchUp....
'SketchUp is a simple, 3D conceptual design modeler used by architects, engineers and anyone who wants to play with ideas in 3D.'
I digress.....
@unknownuser said:
What will SketchUp Free and Pro look like in 2013?
Hopefully the gap between Free and Pro will grow. With some of the well documented irregularities addressed. But please dont f#&k up the UX
-
@rich o brien said:
I definitely don't see SU needing to add an all singing all dancing UV mapping tool...
You are killing me
-
@jason_maranto said:
You are killing me
No, i feel your pain....when the software doesn't mature then the user must.
Even though I use Blender alot I only use probably 30% of it. Whereas in SketchUp I use 85% of it. So the glaring flowblockers are more apparent because I have had my concorde moment with it. By that I mean as a user I've exhausted all options to get more efficient and plateaued.
I think a lot of people try to make SketchUp do things it isn't meant to do.
That being said....
If a Xoogler/Trimbler/SketchUpper is reading this please give Pro users quads and sub-d.....before some else does
-
These days I'm using ZBrush and Hexagon for my subD and UV Unwrap -- but neither support a Maxwell plugin and moving stuff into and out of Sketchup is a real drag.
I suppose if SketchUp became a significantly better importer/exporter (and host of) of dense geometry then my UV issues would be somewhat alleviated. Because really my main interest in SketchUp at this point is the superior Maxwell plugin -- I work with high-poly organic-type models so often these days that SketchUp has become a liability... any geo I make with vanilla Sketchup looks simplistic and clunky, unless I go into plugin detail overdrive.
And of course trying to get clean texture mapping on complex plugin generated surfaces within SketchUp is a joke... just doing something with a rounded corner is tough.
Another problem that really creates issues outside SketchUp is there is no option for setting how planar surfaces are triangulated (and this is hidden, by SketchUp, from the user at all times)... cut a circular hole in a simple plane and export (yeah, I know -- it blows bigtime) -- I like formZ's controls over this aspect in particular and that alone is almost enough to get me to switch.
Best,
Jason.
Advertisement