Looking ahead to SU 8.
-
[quote="plot-paris"][remus, I think gruff ment 'construction planes' as opposed to 'section planes', similar to construction lines but only as planes
I've been in solid modeling for many years.
The biggest pain I have with Sketchup is the fact that think you have drawn a flat sketch but when you rotate the model parts of your sketch fly off in z or other directions.
By construction Plane I mean a see through plane you define in space that you may draw 2D entities upon similar to drawing on a model face. They would need a toggle to lock/unlock the 2D sketch tools to them. infered snap points from the model would be projected to the plane.
Redefining the 3D Axis in Sketchup sort of gets you there except it doesn lock you to the plane.
Construction plane creation
- Parallel at a distance. (Similar to push/pull but without the join)
- Angled from (Select an face or plane an axis to rotate about.)
- Three point
- Line and a point
- two lines
-
Texturing tools (UV unwrap)
Layered texturesThe shadow bug can be a killer but I do not see this one being fixed anytime soon.
To be honest I think Google needs to take a look at how well Luxology has done with Modo. Set aside the rendering capabilities of modo and just look at the modeling and texturing. It is a very well rounded program and if very user friendly. I also like the ability to completely customize the UI.
I do not think Sketchup needs to add in a photoreal render solution. Having more than enough integrated or external render options in every price point from free to ridiculous is fine to leave them separate. I would much rather see Google place their efforts into the modeling aspects of the program and not add too much fluff.
Scott
-
Cheers for explaining gruff, see where your coming from now
as an intermediate solution, tigs 2d tools may be of use: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=180&t=22091
-
@remus said:
jakob, what would happen with upgrades to the plugin? who would be tasked with going through the code? itd be a monster job and one thats better left to plugin developers themselves, in my opinion.
fair point there, remus. absolutely true. the big ones, that really add completely new features to the program are probably better kept in the hands of the ruby coders.
-
Include "repair broken lines", repair broken polylines, arcs and circles.
I still use many older versions depending on the purpose, especially important: the different collada exporters and the different handling of models on upload to 3d-warehouse.
-
- Global option to toggle on/off the line-break-at-crossings feature that was implemented in version 7.0; I'm still using version 6 because I've got too many older models that rely upon the non-break "feature" of version 6(and earlier).
- Much improved UVW features. My models are exported for use in PC games and in that environment performance is highly influenced by the number of individual texture files (fewer being far better). It's really hard to use non-tiling textures in SU right now.
-
in the material section I would like to see a few additions.
apart from better uv control and layered textures (these would be awesome!)
glossy materials would be really cool. they don't need a lot of rendering power, because they only have to show highlights (unlike reflections, that need a lot of machine power).
another one that would make SU images a far more interesting is roughness of a material. especially with transparent materials you could create frosted glass! -
a simple one that i really wish they'd fix - (or maybe my technique is wrong.. if you have a way of doing this, please share!
)inferencing while rotating doesn't work right.. i feel like i should be able to rotate this cube and have it's corner end up on the line.. can't do it though because i can only rotate in degrees of 0.0 instead of freely.
[flash=640,385:jftx8ijz]http://www.youtube.com/v/q_UIu84_89g&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6[/flash:jftx8ijz]
-
Sketchup->model Info->units->angle snapping (turn it off.)
-
oh man, i was so hoping that was going to do the trick but nah.
i have my angle snapping at 15⁰ so i don't think that's going to matter anyway.
likewise, i have my line snap set to 1/2" but i can still inference to an infinite amount of points regardless of the length my line will end up (it could be 30 27/1024" for instance)..
i dunno, try a quick drawing like i've shown in the video and you'll see that the inferencing system won't grab the line.
-
Damm. As a crappy workaround you could place a point on the line, but its not the same as being able to infer straight on the line goes in search of feature requests
-
This is old, guys. You cannot snap to an edge that is on the rotation plane when rotating. Too bad, I know (it would make modelling a whole bunch of otherwise hopeless geometry).
-
yeah Gai, i've been using su since v4 and noticed this in either 4 or 5.. i figure i might as well wait till v8 before i start asking for someone to fix it or to see if i'm doing something wrong
i have a way to deal with this if need be but it's 6 or 7 extra steps.. sort of a momentum killer when you're in the middle of drawing..
[actually, i think this might be solvable via ruby.. can ruby do trig functions and/or a²+b²=c² type of stuff?]
-
@unknownuser said:
actually, i think this might be solvable via ruby.. can ruby do trig functions and/or a²+b²=c² type of stuff?
Yep, ruby can do trig functions. What did you have in mind?
-
I believe ruby can do all sorts of calculations but my knowledge is lesser than my belief.
-
@remus said:
@unknownuser said:
actually, i think this might be solvable via ruby.. can ruby do trig functions and/or a²+b²=c² type of stuff?
Yep, ruby can do trig functions. What did you have in mind?
Something along these lines.... [that's just the way i think it could happen
... but it does kill two birds with one stone.. in SU, it's also a lot harder than it should be to draw a set length in between two other (non-parallel ) lines...
-
I think you need to get your calculator out jeff
-
Hmm, i wonder if a rotate tool could be written that could infer on lines. Perhaps put a [req] in the ruby forum?
-
@remus said:
I think you need to get your calculator out jeff
haha.. i don't want to think of it in terms of the above but i think that's how it breaks down mathematically.. really, i just want a cpoint dropped at the intersection (point B in the drawings).. maybe there's another way to obtain this?
here's my current workaround.. [but damn, can't google just make inferencing work here
]
-
@plot-paris said:
- Layer Grouping. you select a couple of layers, click right mouse button and choose the option 'group layers' (or use the same keybord shortcut you use for grouping geometry). now you can still switch on or off the layers within the group separately. but if you switch off the whole layer-group, all the layers within will be turned off at once. when you unhide the group again, only those layers will be made visible again, that were switched on before...
oh, and you can expand/collapse layer-groups in the layer window to make some space...
Along this same line, how about the ability to created sub-layers. By that I mean layers that would appear indented under the "Master" layer and be able to collapse to the Master Layer. Unchecking the Master layer would also uncheck the sub-layers.
Structure 1
....Structure 1 - Beams
....Structure 1 - Windows
....Structure 1 - Walls
Structure 2
....Structure 2 - Beams
....Structure 2 - Windows
....Structure 2 - Walls
etc. - Layer Grouping. you select a couple of layers, click right mouse button and choose the option 'group layers' (or use the same keybord shortcut you use for grouping geometry). now you can still switch on or off the layers within the group separately. but if you switch off the whole layer-group, all the layers within will be turned off at once. when you unhide the group again, only those layers will be made visible again, that were switched on before...
Advertisement