Bad News for Architects in the next ver. of Google Sketchup
-
Traditionally Architects are a frugal lot – with their own money at least.
The paradigm of ‘Poor Architect’ has been well represented on the many low cost CAD forums for many years.
Perhaps the blistering initial and ongoing expense of Autodesk and Graphisoft backed drawing systems has widened the fiscal gap between the struggling majority and the affluent few within the global Architectural profession.
With or without “dwg / dxf’ SketchUp free version still must be seen as more then a cup half full – it is delivered as an ever improving product brimming with features.
Indeed SketchUp free is a generous gift by any standard.
It represents an ongoing philanthropic endeavour by a commercial colossus, the benefit of which is greatly appreciated the world over by many Students, Artists, Craftsperson’s, Architects and the like– SketchUp free brings the world closer to expression and exploration of talent regardless of comparative wealth.
Google warehouse is testament to that and to magnitude of this donation the Arts.
Accordingly I offer a big hearty thank you to Google and their SketchUp team.
-
I have been quite hesitant to chime in this discussion because I really don't want to look like a voice of SketchUcation "officially supporting" Google's (or the SketchUp Team's) decision as well as want to avoid looking as someone speaking for pro users (and repeating the often heard "accusations" why Google doesn't make more difference between its paying and non-paying users).
Yes, indeed, when suddenly a feature is no longer supported by a software, it always feels bad. Especially if the support of this feature is not ceased because of some general change in the software but making a sharper distinction between the free product and the pro (read pay) versions.
Now as for myself; if Google hadn't made a free version of SU (back at SU 5), I would have probably never had the chance to get acquainted with it and would still not use any kind of 3D apps to "express myself" in my field. Ever since (v.5), almost all "pro features" have been added to the free version, too (print to scale, print larger than screen resolution, animation export, the Sandbox tools etc.) so practically speaking, the free version has become (almost) equal with the pro version.
Surely there are still the vector based exporters but we know that they can be worked around and of course, LayOut and recently Dynamic Components have also be added but as far as I can tell, their use is still marginal at least according to the whole SU user base (LayOut has been becoming an "adult" software however...)
Now while in SU 5, the use of the free version was ("theoretically" - according to the license) limited to non-commercial use, it was already allowed in v.6 (and of course in v.7 too). Another "barrier" pulled down and many companies use SU free as an additional tool in their arsenal.
I can understand Google's decision that they want to "encourage" sales of their Pro version. After all, that's what the SU Team is living on and that's what generates continuous development. They could've disallowed commercial use of the free version again but we know how ineffective that would've been as well as it would've meant some kind of legal limitation again - which seems to be against their overall policy.
Now we can also put it this way; as a free hobbyist, I didn't need dxf import at all. I was happy enough to be able to model my beloved Gothic churches from scratch (hm... there are no medieval dxf files out there anyway). If an architect (or a draftsman or illustrator) uses SU commercially on a general basis, why would it be so unusual to pay for the proper tool?
Now as for John's "announcement" - as we all know this is very unusual from Google - to speak about SU before it's released. IMO this whole announcement is the fairest ever deed by them; "warning" every free users about possible problems when updating SU.
As for some "accusations" that can be read above (*"is that it, Google?" - "that's all you can do; pulling off features without adding and developing"?*and such...) no-one said that John has revealed everything (or anything else) they are working on and may be part of a new release. It's just about this very fact - dxf/dwg support will no longer be part of the free version. -
@gaieus said:
I have been quite hesitant to chime in this discussion because I really don't want to look like a voice of SketchUcation...
Don't worry, no one thinks of you as the official voice of the forum
Chris
-
Happy Day!
SketchUp has now moved into the 21st century not only with it's elegant and ground breaking user interface, but now with the COLLADA file I/O.
This is the beginning of the end for the DXF prison and the blossuming of a bright future for SketchUp! DXF is the illegitimate child of an antiquated software(ACAD) and it's utter destruction is a god send! Thanks Google for having the conhones to stand up to these greed mongers and giving ACAD a swift kick in the huevos!
If you are using SU+ACAD you are a professsional and should pay the 500 for SU. SketchUp is worth every penny and more. I do understand the backlash when losing functionality, but you need to look at this from Google perspective.
We are lucky to have what we have now. No software company has ever been so gracious as Google. And with the Chrome OS around the corner... We have some bright days ahead of us people! These are glorious days!
psst: Next we should go after M$'s greed machine...
Viva Google!
-
@jessejames said:
This is the beginning of the end for the DXF prison and the blossuming of a bright future for SketchUp! DXF is the illegitimate child of an antiquated software(ACAD) and it's utter destruction is a god send! Thanks Google for having the conhones to stand up to these greed mongers and giving ACAD a swift kick in the huevos!
Talk about optimism.
-
@gaieus said:
I can understand Google's decision that they want to "encourage" sales of their Pro version. After all, that's what the SU Team is living on and that's what generates continuous development. They could've disallowed commercial use of the free version again but we know how ineffective that would've been as well as it would've meant some kind of legal limitation again - which seems to be against their overall policy.
Gaieus,
I use SU Pro so this particular change won't affect me. The only thing that worries me a tad is that this wasn't the reason they gave for the change. If they'd come out and said, 'we want to make a bigger gap between free and Pro so that hobbyists will have a great free program but hardcore users will be more encouraged to buy a great cheap modeler. In the future we hope to use this extra revenue to improve development of both the free and Pro versions.' That would have pleased me greatly. I've long hoped for a wider gap between free and Pro (although I was thinking more along the lines of added Pro features, not fewer free features).
However, the way I read the article it sounds more like he's simply saying that 'there's only so much code to go around and with the direction we're taking SU we think colada is more important than dwg.' If that's truly the thinking that seems rather worrisome and wrong headed in my opinion.
-Brodie
-
Has anyone noticed if text and dimensioning and "orphan" edge lines (often used to draw twigs in trees) are exported to Collada, or is it only 3D?
How about images (rather than textures of faces)
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
JesseJames, I am not a expert, but besides your dislike for ACAD, what is wrong with DXF?
Good points: It is ASCII, thus changeable with a text editor, easy to read, and understand. It creates big files, but not unmanageable by today's standards. The problems with translations have nothing to do with DXF, as one modeler's entities are often another's non-entities. It also has nothing to do with "open", apparently Sony owns "Collada", and maybe elect to "close" it some day, just as ACAD did with DXF. It is also widely used by most Cad applications, and because it has been around for a while, continues to provide access by legacy applications (some of which is not more then 10 years old), and to older databases by new ones.
Bad points: ?????
-
It's great that Collada import/export will be fully supported in the next release... but, as has been said if we already have a good working version of the DXF/DWG import/export tools what's the logic in removing them now ? Other than limiting Free users Options and edging them towards Pro ? Free DoubleCAD will probably bridge the gap for free users anyway ? So why appear to be mean ?
-
@honoluludesktop said:
JesseJames, I am not a expert, but besides your dislike for ACAD, what is wrong with DXF?
Hello honolulu, how's the weather?
Putting ACAD's evil world domination aspirations aside, i feel DXF is just an ugly antiquated bloat that needs to go the way of the Dodo bird -- and the quicker the better. ACAD will change if we force them to! But that change will never come from within.
@honoluludesktop said:
Good points: It is ASCII, thus changeable with a text editor, easy to read, and understand.
COLLADA is just an XML file. So you can read and edit it with a standard text editor OR with special "fancy" editors. So COLLDA is DXF without the antiquities, but with a much more intelligent markup structure.
@honoluludesktop said:
It creates big files, but not unmanageable by today's standards.
Yes far too big! But, "?not unmanageable?" as measured by what yardstick? DXF is actually very ugly in a text editor. IMHO. Parsing markup tags is sooo much easier.
@honoluludesktop said:
It also has nothing to do with "open", apparently Sony owns "Collada", and maybe elect to "close" it some day, just as ACAD did with DXF.
You have a point. Sony is no Angel by far! I would like a guaruntee of free-ness from Sony because i have not forgotten about those evil Sony rootkits that plagued the world not so long ago!
I have not read the details of license in full. But i do know that as it stands now, COLLADA is released for commercial and private usage (per the website). I would much like a truley open standard but that can come in due time. First we must ween of the ACAD nipple!
@honoluludesktop said:
It is also widely used by most Cad applications, and because it has been around for a while, continues to provide access by legacy applications (some of which is not more then 10 years old), and to older databases by new ones.
And i fear a thousand more years of ACAD proprietary dictatorship will continue unless the revolutionaries storm the palace and remove the "greedys" from power.
@honoluludesktop said:
Bad points: ?????
not sure? But no system can possibly be perfect. More good than bad i am sure. With COLLADA now i can export to Blender for fancy subsurface/ sculping stuff that SketchUp is not good at and vice-versa!
Sorry if my post seems like a hahaha to ACAD users, that was not my intent. Losing any functionalty as important as Import/Export hurts. But since the free version is primarily geared towards hobbist modelers and GE, i can see the reasoning behind such a move. And i can understand the anger of SU Pro guys when they see a free version that allows such functionality.
-
@al hart said:
Has anyone noticed if text and dimensioning and "orphan" edge lines (often used to draw twigs in trees) are exported to Collada, or is it only 3D?
Very important question, Al.
I also would like to know.
Without orphan edge lines, importing CAD through Collada is useless.
Most of us import 2D plans and not so much 3D. -
Interestingly, the collada format is more versatile than virtually any other 3d format that SU already has. Whether removing dwg is good or bad, I think in the future Google's decision to more fully support collada will prove to be advantageous.
-
It's XML people! just throw some info between <tagname> and </tagname> and whamo! It now supports "tagname's" functionality.
...well that is, as long as the receiver knows what to do with the extra info.
If you want to see it first hand, draw some geometry in SketchUp and export as kmz. Then rename the file to zip and open the .dae file in a text editor. Beautiful! Makes DXF look like lipstick on a pig
-
@jessejames said:
If you want to see it first hand, draw some geometry in SketchUp and export as kmz. Then rename the file to zip and open the .dae file in a text editor. Beautiful! Makes DXF look like lipstick on a pig
I took a model, exported it as .KMZ and them imported it.
Here is what I got.
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
JesseJames, Aside from your use of colorful adjectives, your post was informative, and reasonable. Thanks:-)
Just keep in mind that a lot of us depend on DXF. Some, have no other reasonable option
-
@al hart said:
Has anyone noticed if text and dimensioning and "orphan" edge lines (often used to draw twigs in trees) are exported to Collada, or is it only 3D?
How about images (rather than textures of faces)
It's been around for a while; standalone edges now export to collada. The decision was made in order to let people model say cable supported bridges for GE without unnecessary extra geometry (faces) added.
Jesse - yes, your reasoning is correct. Probably some kind of "company policy" (breaking ACAD monopoly( is also behind the curtains.
I wasn1t "repeating" any official Google opinion however just trying to think aloud and understand some background considerations, too.
-
@honoluludesktop said:
Just keep in mind that a lot of us depend on DXF. Some, have no other reasonable option
Yikes i feel really bad now
In an effort to relate to the loss of DXF i imagined for a second (and only a second!) that scripting or some other functionality that was important to me where removed and ouch i am very hurt and angry now! Google, you really know how to put the hooks in us don't you! But at least you give instead of take, take, take -- like you know who!
Please understand Honolulu that my beef is with proprietary formats that have been shoved down our throats for years now by M$, ACAD, and the other greed mongering corporations out there who's evil empire aspirations make my head spin around in circles whilst spiting pea soup!
And my happiness is only in the fact that we will now get a true "modelers" file type for Import/Export of SU files. Sadly though at great loss to many among us!
But now i can feel the damage that you must be feeling. What could be next? Scripting? Printing? Reduced Functionality? I understand the financial reasons but...???
The only way to fix this whole conundrum would be to OpenSource SketchUp. But alas, that is but the pipe dream of fools. This software is sadly too revolutionary for open source.
If we could only find a way for Google to profit from this app then maybe...?
ahh rats, life stinks!
-
@unknownuser said:
'we want to make a bigger gap between free and Pro so that hobbyists will have a great free program but hardcore users will be more encouraged to buy a great cheap modeler. In the future we hope to use this extra revenue to improve development of both the free and Pro versions.'
That should be carved in stone and mounted above the main entrance at the Googleplex.
-
@jessejames said:
my beef is with proprietary formats that have been shoved down our throats for years now by M$, ACAD, and the other greed mongering corporations out there who's evil empire aspirations make my head spin around in circles whilst spiting pea soup!
Having been engaged with a Mac drafting software forever, I know about trying to work with the "proprietary" formats. I think you may relax some!
AutoDesk developed DWG and DXF for use in their software. Other developers have to make translators with mixed success for these formats because AutoCAD is so popular and successful, us users of "other" software need to be able to share files with AutoCAD users in order to do business. It's usually these users who assume you'll provide a DWG file etc. if you wish to collaborate with them.
I don't think, I don't really know, if Collada can aspire to provide the same sort of interchange for CAD but isn't that up to "us", and not AutoDesk, if we want an open source file exchange format that can handle the needs of CAD (or modeling) exchange?
Autodesk does make software that drives the industry forward (perhaps they also greedily consume other perfectly good software). I happen not to use their flagship AutoCAD, but I don't blame them for being successful.
Sorry for the run-on sentences.
-
@linea said:
@unknownuser said:
'we want to make a bigger gap between free and Pro so that hobbyists will have a great free program but hardcore users will be more encouraged to buy a great cheap modeler. In the future we hope to use this extra revenue to improve development of both the free and Pro versions.'
That should be carved in stone and mounted above the main entrance at the Googleplex.
haha, I'd spring for the stone masons.
-brodie
Advertisement