Is this acceptable in professional software?
-
It's not Google hate.
We just would like to see some elementary things fixed.
The shadows are an important SU feature. -
The idea that Google should just pay up & licence the algorithm sounds good but it assumes the algorithm is available to licence. I'd heard that Creative (the mp3 player manufacturer) who control the patent apparently have no interest in licencing it. I don't know why but that is what I heard.
Seems to me the 'baked' shadow idea is the way to go. It might also offer the potential of 'sketchy' shadows or some form of 'soft' shadow. I personally wouldn't care if it wasn't 'real-time' -- I'd be happy to wait anytime I needed it to 'bake'. I imagine the existing shadow engine could remain too as an option for when you want real-time.
Regards, Ross
-
I agree with Ross and the comments of others here regarding having "Correct" interior shadows. I admire Craig for being straight up with us here in this public forum. It's obvious that the people who develop SketchUP and the people who use it agree that fixing the problem is a worthy cause. I just hope that someday it gets fixed. It's not going to stop me from using SU but having it fixed would eliminate a few headaches that occur on occasions while using the software.
Shadow Baking could also speed up animation considerably.
-
I have to agree with kwistenbiebel that correct shadows are an essential and that possibly there are far better options now available for walk throughs. I have to strongly suggest there are a number of things that also need attention opoly count issues being my biggest gripe for now!
I reckon for now all users keeping fingers crossed for improvements to V7 is the way to go! I'll even let my thinning hair get matted for months to add to my ten fingers and toes!!
-
Coen posted this in another thread: "I can quite confidently say that the Google R&D boys are very much aware and involved with the Wish forum. Erm, that's all I'm really allowed to say anyway."
I can not imagine SU7 won't deal with some of our gripes, like high poly. If 7 doesn't support high poly, I'll eat my socks.
Yes - I am optimistic about SU's future.
-
I looked up 'Carmack's reverse' before I posted. Wikipedia has some information here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume
There are a number of different, but apparently similar approaches. Proper shadows really must be made to work. Such a basic issue still in Version 7 (I'm assuming that it's not going to get fixed by then) of an application by one of the largest and richest companies in the world really isn't good. And they have a truly awesome amount of brainpower at their disposal.
I'm sorry if it seems like I am having a go at Google. I certainly wasn't sniping at Craig who was honest enough to front up about it.
I rely on lots of Google's products, and they are almost all free, which is fantastic. However as a company they are rich and powerful. When they bought @Last, we all expected big progress. What did we get? LayOut, Sandbox and support for Google Earth. Layout (which I believe was formerly known as Grizzly) was one of the killer features we were all looking forward to. Something that worked like SketchUp which would add 2d drawing and labelling capabilities to SketchUp so we could throw out our CAD packages. That's what we wanted, but what we got was something that fell way short of that. I don't know how much it has been improved, I stopped using it when my family thought I had developed Tourette's syndrome. Google Earth support is nice, but not something we were exactly clamouring for. The sandbox tools? Again nice, but not as impressive as Subdivide and Smooth or LightUp IMHO.
On the downside we still have the limitations with complex models and shadows.
To quote Spiderman (
), "With great power comes great responsibility" and I'm not sure Google is taking enough. -
@bigstick said:
When they bought @Last, we all expected big progress. What did we get? LayOut, Sandbox and support for Google Earth.
I started using SU Pro v5... Back then it was still @Last and as far as I remember, the Sandbox was already part of the package, so I wouldn't say that we got this when Google acquired @Last...
-
@frederik said:
@bigstick said:
When they bought @Last, we all expected big progress. What did we get? LayOut, Sandbox and support for Google Earth.
I started using SU Pro v5... Back then it was still @Last and as far as I remember, the Sandbox was already part of the package, so I wouldn't say that we got this when Google acquired @Last...
Correct!!!!
-
@frederik said:
I started using SU Pro v5... Back then it was still @Last and as far as I remember, the Sandbox was already part of the package, so I wouldn't say that we got this when Google acquired @Last...
Exactly, it was there (but missing from the free version - now it's part of the free version as well as animation export, print to scale and 2D raster export bigger than screen size)
-
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
And by the way, wasn't Grizzly initially an @Last concept ?
Indeed it was...!
I remember a video by Chris Fullmer from an @Last basecamp, where Grizzly (now 'Layout') was introduced...
@kwistenbiebel said:
So that just leaves us with support for Google Earth.(And 'Styles', or was that @Last as well?)
Not sure about 'Styles'... Could have been an @Last initiative...
So I suppose that only leaves us with Google Earth...
-
-
I agree with you Csaba...
And I seem to recall having read somewhere, that the new Google SU Team have been working a lot on cleaning up the SU code in order to be able to have it ready for future implementations...I assume everybody here knows why we love SU as much as we do...!!
But with time, some need more advanced features and need to try other applications capable of doing what they need... But I'm sure that SU is still being used by these people together with new applications...I sure look forward to see what SU v7 brings, but I understand the frustration people have about the shadow bug...
@craigd said:
but I can tell you it's not as simple as you think. We're not happy about it either, but it is not in our control.
Eeehhh... Not in Google control..??
If it's not in Google's control, I sure would like to know whos control it is...
Sorry for being so frank here, but what kind of comment is that..??
Google have the source code to SU, and I'm sure they would be able to come up with an alternative solution taking care of this issue...
I have huge difficulties believing the Creative solution is the only one available... -
Yes, One would expect that a company that organises 'summers of code' just might have the creativity to overcome a thing like a shadow bug in a modeler.
-
-
While that may be true, I was just referring to those who posted before me.
Anyway, those apps/styles don't have anything to do with the shadow bug at all and it is truely annoying whatever kinds of (tedious) workarounds it can be eliminated with. -
I don't want to see Layout Dropped, it could be real time saver if it can be made to run smoothy/quickly.
By the way; what is wrong with location of SketchUp shadows. I know all about the camera/shadow bug, but I'm not aware of the locations of the shadows being wrong. This is of course important for doing some shading studies. I'm aware that it doesn't adjust for day light savings time, but that is easy enough to do on my own. Is something else wrong?
-
I think what craig meant when he said it wasnt in their control, was that someone higher up the management tree had decided that they werent going to try and license out carmack's from creative.
And as for providing a solution of their own, if it was as simple as is sometimes suggested they would have come up with a solution. I imagine a lot of the difficulty comes from providing a solution while not infringng on the original patent.
-
@davidboulder said:
By the way; what is wrong with location of SketchUp shadows. I know all about the camera/shadow bug, but I'm not aware of the locations of the shadows being wrong. This is of course important for doing some shading studies. I'm aware that it doesn't adjust for day light savings time, but that is easy enough to do on my own. Is something else wrong?
You are right. The sun direction and according shadows seem pretty correct in current SU for a given time/date.
The problem is that when panning and orbiting the view, in most cases in interiors, the shadows start flashing and show weird patterns. Some viewpoints show the sun/shadows correctly, while at other viewpoints, shadows are gone or mashed up. -
@unknownuser said:
To be honest it looks to me like you Google guys spend too much time on your slides, Segways and table football to do enough work. Yes, I know I shouldn't believe everything I read in the newspapers, but I would be delighted if you prove me wrong.
I am a massive SketchUp fan, but if I'm totally honest it looks to me like Google is getting corporately fat & lazy. I think it's fair to say that all users are expecting some really big advances for V7.
I just wrote a long reply and lost it due to some login glitch. grrrh. I can't bear to do it again. So I spare you ... in brief.
Other programs cost much more,have their own problems,and are less responsive to user; often dying a slow death due to lack of development, while someone (I surmise) is mining the company for their retirement. You don't know what "lazy"is.
Where else is there something like the SU developers and community? Some much more expensive Pro softwares do not have an open macro system, do not respond to forums, do not have training, etc. SU gives a decent foothold into 3d for those who can ill spare the cost in time (which is money, I hear) to take on other offerings.
Advertisement