Bad News for Architects in the next ver. of Google Sketchup
-
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
-
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.
Advertisement