Where is SU 7 ?
-
i think the main thing i want is high poly support, and kind of tied in with that is support for all this new hardware we've got/are getting (64 bit, lots of processors etc.)
Apart form that anything else would just be an added bonus really.
As for a native SU render engine, i think its pretty unlikely. There are already loads of render engines that are pretty tightly integrated with SU, and adding a render engine, which is an entire program in itself, could add a lot of bloat to SU. Basically i dont think its the direction google is taking SU in.
-
thanks for your answer )
-
yeah high poly support is a must. In terms of rendering, I'd be in favour of google buying out podium. I don't think su would feel bloated with such an integrated renderer. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but I also want to be able to do all my plans in su; so i'm looking for fine lines with hatching options (a 2d drafting mode). I know the beauty of su is its simple interface but I think it could do with a real pro version with all these extras.
-
Why would SU benefit form a podium but out? Yes youd get an integrated render engine, but this is already easily available. I think its important to remeber that SU is a modellign engine, and isnt really a render engine. Im of the opinion SU should stick to modelling.
-
I agree with you, remus.
in the last few months my wishes for SU7 have shifted from an allmighty application to a stable working core unit (with, of course, high poly and multi core cpu support)...
with the best possible integration of ruby scripting!
I think to give the wonderful minds behind all these scripts that make SU such an incredible app even more influence to implement their little programs would be the greatest improvement.
therefore my biggest wish is, that Google announces a Ruby contest(lets say four times a year) where the best new scripts (or script updates) are chosen and their writers get a nice tropy money (for the hundrets of red bull cans they needed
) -
If Google did by rendering engine, I expect it wold remain a separate application like Layout, vs. becoming part of SketchUp.
I use KT, and like that my rendering goes of to separate application. I can let it do test renders while I continue to model in SketchUp, and for big renderings and animations, I dump it to another computer, and again, I can keep working in SketchUp.
-
I would say that a built in renderer is last on my long list of SU wants.
IMHO, they have many more "core" issues that they need to tackle long before they start thinking about renderers.
Has it really been a year and a half since the last version? I think that Cheetah3D (basically a one man developer) has had 3 or 4 big upgrades since the last time we saw a SU release.
Thank goodness for the fantastic ruby scripters who have, honestly and without exaggeration, allowed me to not scrap SU in the last 3 months. My work has not included any architectural modeling what so ever and the object modeling I am doing right now would have been completely impossible without the subdivision, offset on surface, free form deformation, etc. additions to my arsenal. And working under quite tight deadlines almost entirely precluded starting cold learning a new software. And, FWIW, Cheetah, with my average skillset, couldn't have pulled it off either, a least without a huge time commitment and much head banging.
I am desperately hoping that ver7 has enough improvement (you guys know as well as I do the list of issues) that I feel comfortable continuing to use it with regularity. As far as I am concerned, it needs to be strong enough to still be competitive with other options at least a year after its release, given Google's demonstrated rate for upgrading.
A software that relies heavily on it's users have the ingenuity and imagination to develop work arounds, refinements, and complete additional capacities could at least provide these people with the cutting edge in processor usage, polygon handling (anyone seen what z-brush can do!
) , etc. coded in.Or maybe I am just way not the target user that Google has in mind and my particular needs are deemed inconsequential and too "fringe".
Any one seen the cover article for this month's Atlantic Monthly? Google it! (hahahaha)
-
If Google was to implement a renderer it would not be for rendering per-se but more as a solution to the shadow bug in animation IMO, as raytracing would eliminate the shadow issue.
-
So, the only way they can solve the shadow bug is by requiring a raytraced export? That is a poor solution at best. So, for a 9000 frame animation at 2560 x 1440 that takes approx 17 seconds a frame, now, for me to export, I would think that a raytraced export would take so long as to no longer be a viable option.
-sigh-
I guess that answers my shadow bug question.
-
Like I said "IF" I am sure that it would be streamlined to an end where it could be a viable solution at least at You Tube resolutions.
Again this is only a thought, Google are very tight lipped. -
@kwistenbiebel said:
Nice analysis kannonbal,
I share these thought and make them apply on architectural work as well.thank you, sir.
It would be easier if I didn't care, but, jeez, this is Sketchup for crying out loud. It completely kicks the poo out of the other softwares out there, even with a large amount of modeling contortions and tweaks.
But, it really HAS to keep up with modern hardware. I feel silly even thinking that I need to say that out loud. It's not like the old software/hardware hopscotch is a new development.
-
@solo said:
Like I said "IF" I am sure that it would be streamlined to an end where it could be a viable solution at least at You Tube resolutions.
Again this is only a thought, Google are very tight lipped.I hear your if, no doubt.
Well, youtube resolutions are almost 720p HD.
-
Ray tracing isnt the only solution. there was a fix at one pint, although another company had a patent on it and so it was removed from SU. Perhaps there is another solution similar to this that isnt patented.
-
Yes there was, version 4 had it but due to the legal issues that arose it was not included in 5, 6 and i doubt 7, so a new solution needs to be addressed.
-
Nice analysis kannonbal,
I share these thoughts and make them apply on architectural work as well. -
The guy who owns the 'patent' ('rights','copyright', or whatever the right word) must be a complete *sshole, as he clearly is charging way too much money, even for google it seems, for his shadow calculation thing.
...the story of the mouse slaying the elephant.
Oh, when mice smell cheese... -
It's known as Carmack's Reverse, but Creative Labs are the real villains. As this article states they are claiming patent on an algorithm that isn't even the same...just similar...to the one that John Carmack developed. That's like laying claim to a quadratic equation.
They are indeed asking a ton of money...it's the gaming industry, after all. -
Sorry to pull this thread further in to the depths of off topicness, but what method does SU use for rendering shadows? is it just a simple vector equation or are there more complex forces at work?
-
@remus said:
Sorry to pull this thread further in to the depths of off topicness, but what method does SU use for rendering shadows? is it just a simple vector equation or are there more complex forces at work?
I remember reading in the old @Last forum that the "more complex forces at work" is the answer nearest to the truth, and that shadows are not directly supported by OpenGL, but that some clever engineering has been used to make it generate them. I might remember wrong, though.
Anssi
-
@plot-paris said:
therefore my biggest wish is, that Google announces a Ruby contest(lets say four times a year) where the best new scripts (or script updates) are chosen and their writers get a nice tropy money (for the hundrets of red bull cans they needed
)That is a brilliant idea!
Advertisement