Bad News for Architects in the next ver. of Google Sketchup
-
@unknownuser said:
second, THAT'S IT? nothing else? no improvements to UI, dynamic components, rendering, sandbox etc. this is becoming a trend with google, following Autode$$$$k in offering nothing with a new version other than incompatibility with previous versions.
Ummm Nik, did you not sign a NDA?
-
@unknownuser said:
I know that every change is hard, but we have to try to cut off Autodesk's monopoly! Ask your clients to send you collada files - after all it is your interest! If you want to escape from SketchUP
I would love to see Autodesks monopoly to end but the reality is, if most of us suddenly did what you are suggesting, our client base would dwindle. I'm all for open standards but the dwg and dxf have a few years in them yet.
@unknownuser said:
SolidWorks Lab:
By exporting your SolidWorks assembly in the Collada format.... Not only is your model geometry preserved in the export, but colors, textures and motion are available as well.
Great, but a very large number of Autocad users are still just exchanging 2d plans.
-
@dale said:
From my understanding Autodesk has been a participant in the development of collada, is that not true?
not really, Autode$$$$k have their own version of collada.
although collada is a useful format as i use max and personally have need for it (sadly the beta version doesn't work yet) it is not a big deal and i haven't had any problems getting files from SU to max yet (or any other software for that matter)
second, THAT'S IT? nothing else? no improvements to UI, dynamic components, rendering, sandbox etc. this is becoming a trend with google, following Autode$$$$k in offering nothing with a new version other than incompatibility with previous versions.
i think all the broohaha over adding collada is a joke, and i agree with everybody else that taking away anything from a new version of any software is a horrible idea, once you get used to a certain feature, it is expected to exist, or improve.
remember that Autode$$$$k got here by offering free version of autocrap to students for many years, and never once took away a feature (not that they added anything useful either recently)
-
thanx
-
It was a sample that is not a problem for the big boys to implement collada.
-
-
-
So I confess I didn't know dick about collada before now, but my reading tells me that the patent which was originally Sony's is now jointly owned by Sony and Khronos group. So how does Autodesk develop it's own Collada and not be taken to task on copyright infringements. I mean I know that Autodesk is a big company, But Sony.....
-
Hi Dale, Good point, DXF was once an open format too.
-
I presume that both Max and Collada are different than FBX? (We are currently working on a contract where we have to read FBX)
I recall a discussion had with a developer about 20 years ago about why we should (or shouldn't) convert all our formats to OpenGL (or whatever Silicon Graphics was calling their new 3D standard then)
Why can't someone come up with a 3D standard that we can use?
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
(note most of this is rather speculative. I do not the entire details of autodesk's alleged collada format. But I think that my take on G.E.'s implementation of collada is accurate - this might be very boring to read
).As for a company like autodesk making their own version of collada....that can happen because most open source licenses work in way that anyone can develop the code and then submit the code back to the orignal preoject to be quality checked.
But since its open source, the license that makes it so anyone can develop the core product also makes it so anyone can develop their own offshoots and package it and sell it as their own, with the stipulation that they have to make the original source code and all added source code open source also.
So if autocad has developed their own version of collada - presumabely to expand Collada's capabilities, but probably to try and still be Collada compatible, Autodesk would probably still have to legally post their code in its entirety, and publish all the details of their file format specs.
But still, its arguable if it does anyone any good to have multiple versions of the same file format.
But, KMZ being able to hold collada files is precisely the concept I would imagine. Since its an open standard, they have the right to use it and add to it as a 3d format (though my understanding is that they submit their file format changes back to the collada core and make it a collada standard, meaning that whatever they implement is implemented throughout the entire collada file format).
So long story short is that since its an open source format, anyone can use it, tweak it, however they want (though I would need to verify what type of license its filed under to know exactly what extent they allow their code to be used). Heck, you could make your own 3d file format based entirely off of colada, just change the name, and call it your own.
Chris
-
I strongly disagree with Google's decision to remove the dwg/dxf importer in the next release of the free version of Sketchup. While there may be a workaround such as using SU7 to import I think Google should reconsider this move.
That is all.
Gus
-
This isnt meant to sound condescending, but it would help if you explain your point a little more. Just saying 'I disagree' isnt going to win many people around.
-
@remus said:
This isnt meant to sound condescending, but it would help if you explain your point a little more. Just saying 'I disagree' isnt going to win many people around.
Disapprove, disagree, disheartened: disagree was the first word that came to mind. Not sure if I can win any people regarding this point but the reason would be that I use the importer frequently for laying out my Sketchup models by importing the basic floor plan or site plan.
Removing it would add an extra step by having me import in SU7 and then copying it over to the latest version. It also leaves me with a feeling of uncertainty regarding future releases knowing that in the next release the dwg/dxf importer will be history.
The other option to maintain a smooth workflow would be to purchase SU Pro. However, in these harsh economic times I would it find it next to impossible to purchase this product.
Gus
-
This is getting funny - we are talking about others people money after all! You need dwg to serve your clients - so you are making money using SketchUP and want everything for free!!! Stop blaming Google and start asking for free version of AutoCAD with export to .skp! Anybody knows what is the cost to maintain ever changing dwg -
@unknownuser said:
DWG R1.0 MC0.0 AutoCAD Release 1.0
DWG R1.2 AC1.2 AutoCAD Release 1.2
DWG R1.40 AC1.40 AutoCAD Release 1.40
DWG R2.05 AC1.50 AutoCAD Release 2.05
DWG R2.10 AC2.10 AutoCAD Release 2.10
DWG R2.21 AC2.21 AutoCAD Release 2.21
DWG R2.22 AC1002, AC2.22 AutoCAD Release 2.22
DWG R2.50 AC1002 AutoCAD Release 2.50
DWG R2.60 AC1003 AutoCAD Release 2.60
DWG R9 AC1004 AutoCAD Release 9
DWG R10 AC1006 AutoCAD Release 10
DWG R11/12 AC1009 AutoCAD Release 11, AutoCAD Release 12
DWG R13 AC1012 AutoCAD Release 13
DWG R14 AC1014 AutoCAD Release 14
DWG 2000 AC1015 AutoCAD 2000, AutoCAD 2000i, AutoCAD 2002
DWG 2004 AC1018 AutoCAD 2004, AutoCAD 2005, AutoCAD 2006
DWG 2007 AC1021 AutoCAD 2007, AutoCAD 2008, AutoCAD 2009
DWG 2010 AC1024 AutoCAD 2010 -
I bet the focus on Collada is for Google's O3D project!!!
O3D allows interactive 3D content to be run in a web browser.@unknownuser said:
Google puts 3D on the web, and it's no joke
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:10 AM...There are a lot of folks who believe it is time to create a standardized, open, and general purpose way to put 3D graphics on the web. O3D is Google's contribution to that ongoing discussion. Our goal is to make the next generation of browsers support 3D "out of the box," and Google SketchUp's long term vision of "3D for Everyone" will be one step closer!...
@unknownuser said:
Google's O3D API is an open-source JavaScript API for creating interactive 3D graphics applications that run in a browser window and targets web developers comfortable with Javascript and having some experience with 3D graphics. The sample COLLADA converter will let you import content from applications such as Autodesk 3Ds Max, Maya and Google SketchUp.
Links to the two quotes above...
http://sketchupdate.blogspot.com/2009/04/google-puts-3d-on-web-and-its-no-joke.html
http://www.khronos.org/news/permalink/google_o3d_javascript_api_offers_a_sample_collada_converter/
One more link confirming the connection...
http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2009/06/google-to-revive-virtual-worlds-efforts.html -
I find it obviously understandable why people are upset about this. Sure, there are work-arounds that will allow GSU users to continue to import. It is the tone of the announcement and the lack of a believeable rational for this. Collada is really a separate issue. It represents a shift in the nature of the relationship between Google and the users of their product(s).
-
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
Advertisement