This could have been the future of sketchup?....
-
Solo,
I agree that SU users form a coherent community and that SU momentarily survives on the great efforts the script coding people make.However, SU won't survive just by Ruby scripts imho.
Yes, maybe for one more year....but you must agree that Sketchup will need some development (and I mean some hard coded changes to the core) to keep up with a changing hardware and software world.
It is not a question of bashing sketchup...it is a question of users being concerned about the future of their beloved Sketchup. -
Biebel
I agree with you that Google needs to overhaul the engine in order for this product to grow bigger and better, no coding can cure the polygon issue (which is a major concern) thats were Google needs to be involved, but I am not sure they can do it. I am not in the know as to what was retained when they bought SU from @last, but I do hope they have the designers nearby.
I would like to say that the whole style builder was a distraction but that would be unfair as because I have no need for it does not make it unneeded.
So in closing I agree with you and hope that the powers that be are watching these threads too, and maybe just maybe we get a surprise in version 7 with high polygon support, but lets not rest our allegiance to the possibility that we may not get our wishes answered. -
Read any architecture magazine or article where there is associated 3d generated images and you will see Sketchup mentioned. It is the defacto computer sketching program. Can it survive if the programmers don't upgrade and improve it NO...but what software can. SU may suffer from it own success IE: it is successful because of it's simplicity. and it's simplicity may hold it back from further success. As the demand for BIM or what ever it's called these days grows and the client and architectural firm owners knowledge and expectations for integration between 2d (CAD) work and 3d BIM grows so to will the expectation that the 3d software that their designers use is seamlessly integrated into the complete project time line through construction etc. SU has and will always be primarily a visualization and presentation tool. It is not BIM and may never be. As the BIM software packages slowly integrate the presentation and visualization capabilities of SU the need for SU will diminish. I am afraid that the Google purchase and emphasis on SU as a simplistic modeling app for Google Earth or 3d warehouse model production it's development as a professional architectural BIM tool has diminished. I for one have never used REVIT but it seems to be the wave of the future for Architects and AutoCAD seems to be the legacy app.
-
@solo said:
...there is no other product out there with the equal ease of use to result ratio which is available to everyone.
SketchUp is 3d for the people, and with the ruby possibilities also by the people.Having dabbled dabbled with many other 3D apps (and almost learned them) I can tell you this is the truth.
I've only gone through a few tuts, and this is by far the fastest, most versatile and easiest
3d app I've ever seen.No, it isn't 3DMax or Maya or Blender, but not everyone is looking for a Ferrari when all we need is a Ford.
So is there really going to be v7?
-
I cant see any reaosn why there wouldnt be V7. SUs good at the moment, but that certainly doesnt mean there's nothing to improve. High poly modeling for a start,ability yot use multiple cores etc. And as someone mentioned, you can't fix everythign with rubies.
-
I think the core problem is that SketchUp is only owned by Google because it provided an easy and cheap (free!) way to populate Goggle Earth. Google Earth is an important aspect of the Google Empire. SketchUp is just a handy little tool for them, nothing more. Google will work only on those aspects of it that help make Google Earth more popular.
It simply isn't in Googles interest to focus on developing the software in a way that will provide benefits to Architects, Woodworkers or any of the other minority interest users.
Google only wants tools that the masses can use. Adding more features, particularly powerful features, nearly always makes a program more complicated to use. This is the exact opposite of what Google wants. Google is well aware that people who want more powerful 3D solutions can find plenty of alternatives elsewhere. It will be more than happy for them to do so because these people are not its customer base. SketchUp does not make its owners any money so there is no real incentive to invest in its future. It does the job thats required of it now and if something else is required in the future then Google will simply buy the company (like @last) when needed.
Google has the money, people and resources available to improve SketchUp in ways that @last could only of dreamed of. Why haven't why the simple bugs been solved. Why hasn't DirectX been considered as an alternative to OpenGL? (Sorry, Mac owners!). I have seen many good suggestions made for improvements by other users.
Why haven't these things happened?
Mainly because, despite a fantastic and dedicated small team at Google (mostly the @last people?) and a loyal and passionate user base, there is no serious money to be made.As usual, it's all about the money.
Like a previous poster mentioned I was also a part of the Amiga community in its heyday.
That was supported by many great third party companies and the efforts of many individuals who created great software for free just like the Ruby scripters of today.
Despite all this the Amiga failed. There were many other different factors involved in that failure. But the main one was that the parent company failed to make money.Hopefully, I'm wrong. Maybe Google really does believe in "Don't be evil". Maybe they will want to make a great program a fantastic one. But the cynic in me doesn't really believe it.
In the same way that I loved and still have happy memories of the Amiga, I intend to use and enjoy SketchUp for as long as possible.
Regards
Mr S -
Ho-hum.
As Mark Twain once said "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." -
@alan fraser said:
Ho-hum.
As Mark Twain once said "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."Some people only need one sentence to make themself clear.
Great post Alan
...and hopefully true. -
If SU7 were already tested as the (non-public) beta release, beta testers couldn't tell anything about it due to the NDA they have signed.
But this is not beta testing issue and is not disclosed as a breach of the DNA: I read posts about files accidentally uploaded to the public WareHouse that couldn't be opened by SU 6 because the file was "created with a newer version of SU" (or what).
as it turned out, someone of the development team made a mistake. I notified the SU Team over here and elsewhere (and probably they got other notifications, too) so they deleted the public files.
Now this is a long and boring story but at least you can be sure that it is being developed and it's not just something Craig for instance is telling us.
Yet of course we cannot be sure which direction SU is taking. We've been hearing stories of "fat faces" since v5 (though we have learnt to live with the thin ones), about "unprecedented geographical details", whatever it means (maybe strengthening the GE side) but that would also involve the ability of handling poly count better) in one of the newsletters etc.
So I still believe that it won't just become a simple plugin for GE but also developed in other fields, too.
-
I sure hope so, Gaieus.
FWIW, I sent a long letter to support a few weeks ago. I basically wrote a dissertation on what is not working in the Mac ver 6. I used many examples, offered to send them files and or corrupted animations, offered to be a beta tester for the new version, and basically said that I was very interested in fixing SU and would be delighted to be of assistance.
I never heard one word back, not even a confirmation that they had received it.
Now, in my business, if someone gives me a tip for improvement, or offers advice to improve workability, or efficiency, or compatibility, I am incredibly grateful. Google, at the least, should not squander unsolicited input. One of my favorite things about SU is the fantastic community. You guys definitely play a huge role in my enjoyment of all things SU. But, I fear the day that we start to feel that we are putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak.
-
@unknownuser said:
...I fear the day that we start to feel that we are putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak.
-
Chuck, i suppose thats one of the problems involved with being part of a large corporaton, it's very easy for customer input to jsut be anonymised by a central section of the organisation and then sent on to the appropriate team or department or whatever. I think if you could get directly in contact with the development team, theyd be very pleased to hear your suggestions.
More generally, i think people are just gettign anxious because of the lack of news. I think we can be reasonably sure that a new version of SU is coming and people just need to wait for it, and with any luck there'll be some big new features/fixes that we'll be able to enjoy.
-
FWIW, I would gladly pay for a real, meaty update.
I would pay $100's for an update that really helped my workflow out. Heck, I would pay money just to not have to do all my animation exports in SU5.
I would never pay a cent for styles...
-
Hmm, even though i have the pro version, i would still like to see the export functions be a standard feature available to the free users. I hear alot of poeple who create custom content for games, and they drool over useing sketchup to do so, however, because of the fact that you need to drop some serious cash to get that option of exporting in Sketchup, most don't. I think what would open up sketchup to more poeple, especially the gaming community would be to at least have the option to buy some of the features from the pro version like the 3DS and exports.
I use the export function to send my files to games, and i love it. Others would love it too, if it was more in reach for them.
As i have said before, adding more features and tools will require more than just relying on official releases and updates.
just my .02
-
But if there was effectively no difference between the Pro version and the Free version, who would bother to buy the product at all. And if it wasn't generating any income, what would fund further development...especially in the direction of its core user base of AEC professionals, as opposed to the Google Earth and gaming community?
Personally, I think that would sign the death warrant for the program, beyond its use as a GE adjunct or a level-builder. -
I t was SketchUp for Googlewhen they sold it.
Now the question is : Google for SketchUp ?
Still a mystery.Does anybody know if Google develops any software ?
a similar case ? -
Personally I believe Google needs to keep the free version as it is and upgrade the pro version with all the meaty bits, that way there can be a free version for populating GE and possibly have a gmax export facility for game modders. And the pro version will then be more enticing for folks who are serious users to take the leap, with the increased sales of the pro version they can develop SU even further and better.
-
Yes, Google Earthers may well outnumber architects/designers these days. I'm not decrying Google Earth...if I saw a business opportunity in there for FormFonts, we'd be in there quick as a shot, just like yourself. (We've already looked at and dismissed Second Life)
But I don't think the demands placed on the program for modelling comparatively simple meshes for GE and games levels would be sufficient to drive it much beyond where it is right now. I don't mean people like yourself who use GE as a kind of 3D portfolio or billboard to generate "real" design work...if I can put it that way. I mean people who's output never gets beyond a relatively simple GE model. How many of them are driving for extra features or developing Ruby scripts etc?
I expect to see the two versions actually getting further apart in terms of operability and output.
-
I certainly hope that there develops a large difference between the free and pro versions.
A free software doesn't really pay for its own development. $500 for the pro version is steal, as far as I am concerned, especially when you factor in all of the free rubys, components, and help you get, too.
That being said, I would have complained bitterly if Google had charged for V6, as it is not a fully functional release, at least on the Mac side of things. Especially when looking at the complete lack of development of Layout after its release, it is pretty obvious that Google just pushed out whatever they happened to have somewhat ready, without much of a commitment to finishing what they started.
Out of sight, out of mind?
I hope not, and I would be the first to admit my misinterpretation of the circumstances, should that be necessary.
-
I think the only thing we want is sincerity.
Say the truth and compromise.It has not been achieved here yet.
Next time they come they should have it clear.
Advertisement