SketchUp 2016 Wishlist
-
@frederik said:
Can you elaborate on the "Multicore support"...?
I understand what multicore is, but unless you're talking about SU native render, what purpose would/should it serve...?To improve the overall sketchup performance? If you compare the single thread performance of the processors of the last years, there has been not much improvement. The last bigger jump in IPC was from Nehalem/Westmere to Sandy Bridge with maybe 15-20%. Incl. the higher possible frequency a bit more - if you overclock. But the real progress is done on the core count - we are now at 14 cores @3,5GHz and up to 18 with slower clocks.
I'm aware that it is not an easy task to make a modeling program multithreaded and maybe there are many operations where it is impossible today. But when i look at the current and coming processors i think it is how it has to work now and that it is the only way to get more performance in the future if you look at the IPC improvements of the last two generations.
And i think there are things that could be "easily" done using multiple cores, like exporting images (as you mentioned), background saving or if it is only opening the components window with a few thousand entries. But i think also exploding should be possible, maybe more complex ruby scripts, maybe shadow calculation, everything that can be split up in several parts for processing...@frederik said:
As for the high poly support...
Please take one of your heavy models and give it a test with SU2015 64-bit, I'm sure you'll notice that it's behaving much better now...
I'm quite sure you can agree that the model no longer change to wireframe when orbiting or panning...I'll also claim that there is a much faster execution of ruby scripts...
I'm curious about it - i will try it.
@kaas said:
Have you tried disabling 'redefine thumbnail on save' in Model Info - File? Should make it save instantly (on an SSD).
i think i tried that already but i'll test it again. Thanks!
-
@pbacot said:
I wish there was a date stamp that updates automatically. So many things missing in LO that make drawing production easier in CAD. This is only a small one, but saves headaches.
Hi Peter, Layout does have Auto-Text tags that have a current date stamp, which always shows the current date. Is that not quite the feature you need?
Just insert this <CurrentDate> tag into any text.
-
Yes... I would love Layout to have Ruby. Never understood why Layout was such a separate program and had no developer support. We had all the drawing and text tools in SU. I always wondered why Layout wasn't actual inside of or part of SU.
-
@chris fullmer said:
@pbacot said:
I wish there was a date stamp that updates automatically. So many things missing in LO that make drawing production easier in CAD. This is only a small one, but saves headaches.
Hi Peter, Layout does have Auto-Text tags that have a current date stamp, which always shows the current date. Is that not quite the feature you need?
Just insert this <CurrentDate> tag into any text.
Nice. I looked around for command. Where are these tags?
-
Comparing my wishlist for 2013, 2014, 2015...
- importing improvements (maybe this is improved with new face finder)
- Quads
- sub-D modeling
- better texturing tools
64bit
- multicore support (yes, this is the way processors evolve now - since a few years)
- high poly support
- faster ruby script execution (it's just a joke, that you have to watch a counter when you round some edges, where another app can do this instantly...)
- faster saving/auto-saving (!)
- faster explode or copy/paste (i have to test 2015...)
- disable/configure snapping
I add to my list:
- less wasted space around the icons, like it was up to v8. I can't find it to be better readable, it just looks worse and i have less space.
- a PhotoMatch window that has the same width as the other windows (layers/info etc.) so that they don't get wider when you dock it ...like it was in v8. I don't see any reason why this window has to be bigger now, same content. Just wasted space, again.
and... since this is a wish list (i don't really think this will ever happen): non destructive and parametrical modeling using a modifier stack or node graphs. But maybe we'll see a ruby
-
You just put that code in Text pbscot.
-
The option to move objects without sticking together, as in AutoCAD, where the "Move" tool to differentiate the "stretch", and thus without a little more "groups" that accumulate in our models .
A "mirror" internal tool in the program, that way it would avoid problems with external tools, and the quality of it would improve, for example, to differentiate a "2d mirror" to "3d mirror", showing in real time where would the reflected object, the option of inverted symmetry (rotating on two axes), or copied to a "group" to prevent sticking.
the possibility to enable or disable the snap, in ALL the toolsangular Dimensions
A "splice" internal tool
A soft line to create surfaces, but it does not hide
a 'ellipse' internal tool (also arcs of ellipse)
divide the screen into four: Top, front, right, projection (default)
Tool "Clone" in matrix, row, rotate, And scale
A "Align" internal tool
Export a blueprint of the current view to a 2d dwg file with Their model layers
View from below
That the sun is visible in the sky, giving us a better idea of where he is located
Improve the follow me tool
uv mapping
Button groups such as layout or bar "first steps"
Layout attached to sketchup (no sense having them in separate programs)
Launcher with recent files, templates, recovered files, and models uploaded by the community
Inscribed and circumscribed polygons
Groups of scenes to higher order and open them to more easily
improve tool "freehand" to deactivate the snap and lock to a 2D plane
achieve world peace
Reliving the dinosaurs
Get me a cup of tea
We could start there
-
@rich o brien said:
or at least offload that presentational aspect to StyleBuilder.
Which is still the same since its inception.
Though I wouldn't like that, I understand it would be a good feature.
You can do that already if you simply Xref your model to a new file and manage styles there.
BTW Style builder would only be nice if shadows and face colors boundary lines would also twist and bend or if, those areas of color could also have a texture with multiple sizes as lines do right now.
-
@krisidious said:
Yes... I would love Layout to have Ruby. Never understood why Layout was such a separate program and had no developer support. We had all the drawing and text tools in SU. I always wondered why Layout wasn't actual inside of or part of SU.
The idea of having more computational efforts on SU for such heavy tasks such as layout's is not easy on me.
Besides that I like the fact that:
- You can insert multiple SU files in LO;
- You can work on a 2D workflow;
- You have very high graphical output and, nowadays you go towards making a SU model only model, with all dims, texts, and leaders inside LO.
- PDF export is beautiful
I don't like the fact that:
- All commands are different in LO than they are from SU (we are so used to SU why reinvent the wheel in LO?);
- Selecting has no CTRL or CTRL+SHIFT modifier keys;
- Drawing commands are less effective;
- Lines don't break nor faces get generated, nor can we paint a shape like in SU wich is much better than filling and stroking stuff;
- No components, only groups;
- Layers are confusing to work with. In SU you CAN'T change active layer, In Layout you MUST change active layer... awkward and opposite workflows.
- Drag methodology for moving stuff around is awfull. Move should be "M" or Icon.;
- Drag+CTRL for copying is terrible;
- Double click for editing viewports is Dangerous as double clicking is also used to edit objects wich are always on top of viewports...
- Scale? SU is better;
- Rotate? SU is better;
- Inference? SU is WAY better;
- That dongle for inference, scale and rotate... OMG...
- Offset tool... where is it?
- Guide Lines?
- Ruby?
- DWG export is flawed;
- Auto text is good but limited;
- Auto tags are good but VERY limited.
I still love Layout and because of it I ditched CAD... so why am I complaining? Because I work with it a lot!
-
agreeeeed.
-
@jql said:
I don't like the fact that:
- All commands are different in LO than they are from SU (we are so used to SU why reinvent the wheel in LO?)
I agree 110%...
The commands should be the same...All in all that's a really great list, Joao...!
-
Material menu:
-when right click on material it's taking so long for the pop-up to show (with lot of materials)
-maybe a button for save/export the material to skm??
-edit function can be a lot better, CMYK, bigger color wheel, maybe layer system with multiple texturesjust a tought
sander
-
@lushi said:
The option to move objects without sticking together, as in AutoCAD, where the "Move" tool to differentiate the "stretch", and thus without a little more "groups" that accumulate in our models .
But Sketchup is not Autocad, and besides, the way the move tool functions can actually be used very effectively in the modeling process. Groups and components are there to allow exactly the kind of movement you are talking about.
I do think, however, that entering and exiting of groups and components could be much more streamlined.
-
How about the ability to toggle camera clipping off and on?
-
What I would like to see are more native tools.
Such as:
- Rotated Box
- 3 Point Circle and 2 point circle
- Rotated Circle/Cyclinder
- More guide lines tools
- Entity Info, be able to change the volume to another attribute, such as, weight, i.e (Steel/lbs), (Alum/lbs) etc.
They did a great job with the rotated rectangle.
Ken
-
@lushi said:
The option to move objects without sticking together, as in AutoCAD, where the "Move" tool to differentiate the "stretch", and thus without a little more "groups" that accumulate in our models .
that's a key difference between sketchup and other cad applications.
in rhino, if you draw a line on top of another line, you'll have 2 lines.
in sketchup, if you do the same thing, you'll have 1 line.both have advantages and i can't really say one way is better than the other.. you just have to have a slightly different mindset/approach in each program.
i'm willing to bet this difference will remain for the life of the software(s).
@unknownuser said:
- 3 Point Circle and 2 point circle
i'd be curious to see how a 3pt circle would be implemented in sketchup..
ultimately, if you're drawing a (segmented) circle using 3 points, you'd expect each point to coincide with a vertex on the circle.. but in most instances, at least one of the vertices of the circle won't fall on one of the points (unless the circle were divided into 3 separate arc segments each with a different number of segments)..
anyway, it could get confusing i imagine.
-
I would like them to resolve the clipping of objects that aren't close to the origin, I hate having to reduce the FOV to 1 to see what I am doing
-
Jeff wrote:
"Ken wrote:
2. 3 Point Circle and 2 point circlei'd be curious to see how a 3pt circle would be implemented in sketchup..
ultimately, if you're drawing a (segmented) circle using 3 points, you'd expect each point to coincide with a vertex on the circle.. but in most instances, at least one of the vertices of the circle won't fall on one of the points (unless the circle were divided into 3 separate arc segments each with a different number of segments)..
anyway, it could get confusing i imagine."
I have a plugin that does draw a 3 point circle. I use it on Images and CAD files. As shown, here is a rectangle 10' by 20'. I made the 3 point selections, and presto I have a 6 segment circle, (normally this would be a 72 segment circle, or a segment per 5 degrees. The radius is equal distance from each of the 3 points. I don't expect each vertex to fall on the circle since circle are made from line segments. However, I expect to have the circle radius to be corrects, as shown in the illustration.
The math, each two points selection define a line that is cord of the circle. A line perpendicular and at the center of each of the two cords, interset at the circle's center. So from this intersection to any of the vertex, is the circle radius.
Works great, just think something this simple should be a native tools.
Guess I am wishing more since I saw how the rotated rectangle was implemented.
Ken
-
Decrease the minimum on Network licensing.
How low? 2 would be nice. I have 6 potential users, who may jump between 7 computers depending on the task (one computer is a render or complex model computer for all to use). However, each user only uses the program in sparse bursts, only up to 3 at once, but I'm not allowed to have a network because 50 seats in a small office is insane. This becomes very annoying.
I will gladly pay more per seat to unlock network licensing.
-
@unknownuser said:
I don't expect each vertex to fall on the circle since circle
well that's the difference with you and I then.
personally, I expect a vertex to fall on the point I used to define the circle.. in the same way if you draw a circle by clicking the center point then radius (like the current circle tool).. the vertex coincides with the point being used to define the radius.
if you don't expect that to happen then I guess that's fine too.
Advertisement