Google living off the backs of the bruised?
-
i think unsatisfied is a little harsh, its more like disappointed in the missed potential. its like your kid getting accepted into Harvard but choosing community college instead.
-
@align said:
it seems there are quite a few 'unsatisfied' customers.
And also millions of happy people using SU.
-
i dunno, when i hear these types of complaints, i basically read them as 'please bloat the hell out of the most widely accessible 3D software available'
just using your lathe.rb example -- i have no need for a lathe tool and i'd rather it not be standard in sketchup.. now do that with the thousand or so other plugins out there and see what a mess you're creating?
just a rough guess is that maybe 10% of all SU users actually have a plugin installed and use it. If i just picked up sketchup and was faced with 100 tools/functions beyond what is currently there, i'd be way turned off and probably seek out another 3d app (which i'd be just as turned off about).
that's the beauty of sketchup -- it's simplicity (and even then, it's still sort of complicated and requires a certain commitment to learn).. it's a great introduction for people into 3D land and can either act as a launching point into other more complicated apps -or- it's current tools can be fully utilized for many full-scale professional jobs.
keeping the plugins separate allows for full on customization of the app once you learn the base SU or realize the need for a certain operation not included in the original install.
i agree with Jim when he says "Let the SketchUp people continue to focus on improving the core, and let the community develop the tools, and provide feedback."
if anything, maybe they can provide more for the writers to work with or some sort of standard checklist/debuggers/installers to help the scripters put out fully functioning cross platform plugins in an easier to obtain method..
but honestly, i don't think SU in general would be at all improved if it came standard with say 'soap skin&bubble'.. i do think it would be greatly improved if higher poly counts were allowed though. -
K.I.S.S. principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principleIronically, there are threads in other 3D app's forums where some members say "we should be able to do X and Y in a simple way, just like SketchUp."
There are some talented modelers out there that have made "Jack bird" amazing things with vanilla SketchUp, without installing a single script.
-
@unknownuser said:
i dunno, when i hear these types of complaints, i basically read them as 'please bloat the hell out of the most widely accessible 3D software available'
just using your lathe.rb example -- i have no need for a lathe tool and i'd rather it not be standard in sketchup.. now do that with the thousand or so other plugins out there and see what a mess you're creating?
just a rough guess is that maybe 10% of all SU users actually have a plugin installed and use it. If i just picked up sketchup and was faced with 100 tools/functions beyond what is currently there, i'd be way turned off and probably seek out another 3d app (which i'd be just as turned off about).
that's the beauty of sketchup -- it's simplicity (and even then, it's still sort of complicated and requires a certain commitment to learn).. it's a great introduction for people into 3D land and can either act as a launching point into other more complicated apps -or- it's current tools can be fully utilized for many full-scale professional jobs.
keeping the plugins separate allows for full on customization of the app once you learn the base SU or realize the need for a certain operation not included in the original install.
i agree with Jim when he says "Let the SketchUp people continue to focus on improving the core, and let the community develop the tools, and provide feedback."
if anything, maybe they can provide more for the writers to work with or some sort of standard checklist/debuggers/installers to help the scripters put out fully functioning cross platform plugins in an easier to obtain method..
but honestly, i don't think SU in general would be at all improved if it came standard with say 'soap skin&bubble'.. i do think it would be greatly improved if higher poly counts were allowed though.i think you called ME out. yeah theres A LOT of plugins to acquire. and its overwhelming. you make me feel much better when you say, requires a certain commitment to learn. cause i think of sketchup as a totally 'can do no wrong' software. when in reality, its DOES have a learning curve. realizing this gives me room for error and understanding that its going to take some time before i can completely grasp sketchup and also its plugins. i need to do some serious reading. note solos sig...
-
@unknownuser said:
i dunno, when i hear these types of complaints, i basically read them as 'please bloat the hell out of the most widely accessible 3D software available'
just using your lathe.rb example -- i have no need for a lathe tool and i'd rather it not be standard in sketchup.. now do that with the thousand or so other plugins out there and see what a mess you're creating?
just a rough guess is that maybe 10% of all SU users actually have a plugin installed and use it. If i just picked up sketchup and was faced with 100 tools/functions beyond what is currently there, i'd be way turned off and probably seek out another 3d app (which i'd be just as turned off about).
that's the beauty of sketchup -- it's simplicity (and even then, it's still sort of complicated and requires a certain commitment to learn).. it's a great introduction for people into 3D land and can either act as a launching point into other more complicated apps -or- it's current tools can be fully utilized for many full-scale professional jobs.
keeping the plugins separate allows for full on customization of the app once you learn the base SU or realize the need for a certain operation not included in the original install.
i agree with Jim when he says "Let the SketchUp people continue to focus on improving the core, and let the community develop the tools, and provide feedback."
if anything, maybe they can provide more for the writers to work with or some sort of standard checklist/debuggers/installers to help the scripters put out fully functioning cross platform plugins in an easier to obtain method..
but honestly, i don't think SU in general would be at all improved if it came standard with say 'soap skin&bubble'.. i do think it would be greatly improved if higher poly counts were allowed though.Personally, I have no desire to have 100+ plugins on my toolbar (although, I've seen those that do, and it's quite funny). However, it would be nice to have some of the basic functionality of a few like Fredoscale. IMO, those are truly basic tools, but they're not built in.
Respectfully, comments like yours give the impression that you're not too familiar with what it takes to create some of these 3rd party plugins. While Google SU Ruby API has exposed many parts of the SU architecture, it has not exposed certain parts that would make some these types of plugins much simpler to develop. Then, there is the Webdialog issue. From my experience, Webdialogs are not really a plugin developer's favorite tool in developing a UI for a plugin. Also, when you're depending on 3rd party solutions, you tend to lose consistency in the UI since there is no overall guiding direction.
@unknownuser said:
i agree with Jim when he says "Let the SketchUp people continue to focus on improving the core, and let the community develop the tools, and provide feedback."
By that logic, SU should never add another tool to the SU tool set. That business model doesn't seem very innovative.
-
@david. said:
Personally, I have no desire to have 100+ plugins on my toolbar (although, I've seen those that do, and it's quite funny). However, it would be nice to have some of the basic functionality of a few like Fredoscale. IMO, those are truly basic tools, but they're not built in.
right, and i think things like arc cpoint finder, draw cline, arc: center & 2 points are very basic tools too that should be included .. so where does it end and who gets to decide? what works for you probably wouldn't work for me or them etc..
certain parts of fredoscale or even jointpushpull can very quickly lead to some disastrous results if used in an unskilled or uninformed way.. i think there's a good reason for leaving plugins like that out of SU.. that said, i do think parts of them should be implemented if they're simply additions to preexisting tools.. one should be able to use regular push/pull on a cylinder for instance instead of using JPP.
@unknownuser said:
Respectfully, comments like yours give the impression that you're not too familiar with what it takes to create some of these 3rd party plugins. While Google SU Ruby API has exposed many parts of the SU architecture, it has not exposed certain parts that would make some these types of plugins much simpler to develop. Then, there is the Webdialog issue. From my experience, Webdialogs are not really a plugin developer's favorite tool in developing a UI for a plugin. Also, when you're depending on 3rd party solutions, you tend to lose consistency in the UI since there is no overall guiding direction.
you're right, i'm not too familar with what it takes to create a plugin but from hanging around here for a while, i can tell a lot of hard work goes into it and there aren't always clear cut steps to achieve one's goals + it seems writers often have to find unnecessary workarounds when they should in fact be provided with more from google..
that's what i was trying to get across when i said "if anything, maybe they can provide more for the writers to work with or some sort of standard checklist/debuggers/installers to help the scripters put out fully functioning cross platform plugins in an easier to obtain method.."@unknownuser said:
By that logic, SU should never add another tool to the SU tool set. That business model doesn't seem very innovative.
for one, i don't think my logic states that su should never have a new tool added.. i'm simply saying that i'd be perfectly happy if google focused more on improving the core functionality of SU instead of trying to add some bells and whistles..
as far as business models go, i really (really) don't think google is trying to make money from sketchup in the same way as most other 3D apps.. Bonzai, for instance, in a business sense are interested in selling as many copies of their software as possible and seek to make their profits based on direct sales alone.. i'm not so sure that's the case with google and sketchup. -
i'd settle for SU's basic toolset being up to par with current 3D toolsets, or even just working th3e way we all know or wish they should/could. AND get rid of that fu!@$#@$ toolbar bullshit already!
i mean really, how longs it been???????????????
(i just noticed that puking emot looks way to happy about things)
-
discaimer: the following post by me is a joke
@xrok1 said:
AND get rid of that fu!@$#@$ toolbar bullshit already!
i mean really, how longs it been???????????????hmm, sounds like a great basis for an 'i'm a mac.. and i'm a pc' commercial..
-
Do any of you people have the faintest idea how much work it takes to maintain and improve a piece of software like SU?
I've done complex software for years and I've also done a moderately complex house design in SU/LO. Apparently quite well, according to various people. In my opinion software is typically one to two orders of magnitude more complex. Bear that in mind next time you feel tempted to slag off someone.
Fascinating and wonderful as some of the plugins are, don't forget that without the large amount of work required to provide SU and the external plugin api there wouldn't be any of them.
-
Tim, if your not going to take this seriously...
the make excuses for google thread is 2 doors over on your left.
have you looked at Moi3D or 3DBrush or Indigo lately; complex software, one developer tons of respectable, timely progress!
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
Improving the core off course is primordial.
But after that, yes, new feautures are3 very much welcomed!!NURBS, better animation, you name it....
yes, i would welcome nurbs very much (though at the moment, i'm actually enjoying learning rhino and am kind of excited about fully learning a 3d app other than sketchup)
nurbs, UV mapping, more powerful surface editing and transformation tools, all of it.. i surely welcome it and think this could be a great way to distinguish between pro & free versions.. thing is, i'm ready for that stuff as i've been working with sketchup since version4 so i'm not too sure how i'd feel about it if i were just beginning.
that said, i highly doubt google is going to take SU in this direction and i'm not going to sit around complaining & waiting for it to happen while being fully aware that the tools i now need are already out there..[edit] and just to clarify my stance a little more, i think it would be very stupid for google to add -for example- subdivision capabilities to sketchup when i can't smoothly work through a model containing only 25,000 polygons without grouping & hiding etc.. same can be said for many of the plugins out there that are capable of adding to the poly count rather quickly.
-
Improving the core off course is primordial.
But after that, yes, new features are very much welcomed!!NURBS, better animation, you name it....
-
Itâs horses for courses. SU is used in a huge number of ways; but as Jeff says, many of the plugins can rapidly lead to a vast number of faces. Maybe you can live with this if all you are doing is hobby-modelling a single mesh or designing a single piece of furniture.
However many people are using it for the purpose for which it was originally designedâŠan architectural napkin program. Whilst some may drool over beautifully detailed models of vehicles, furniture and the like, for othersâŠwhile appreciating the skill involvedâŠsuch models are totally useless, especially if you need to import them by the shedload into an architectural model thatâs already heavy with just the architecture.Personally, Iâm quite happy to have all the add-on functionality provided via Ruby script (and pay for that, if necessary)âŠjust as long as Google keeps its end up and concentrates on raising the workable poly count and generally speeding up the program. Despite Sketchuping all day every day, on a wide range of content, I actually donât use more than a tiny handful of scripts on anything like a regular basisâŠso it would be largely a matter of indifference to me whether they were in the program or not.
SU really ought to have some decent UV mapping by this stage, howeverâŠalthough, again, I can see why this would not be important to someone designing kitchen cabinets who merely needs to apply some wood and formica textures to basically flat surfaces.
-
@unknownuser said:
@kwistenbiebel said:
Improving the core off course is primordial.
But after that, yes, new feautures are3 very much welcomed!!NURBS, better animation, you name it....
yes, i would welcome nurbs very much (though at the moment, i'm actually enjoying learning rhino and am kind of excited about fully learning a 3d app other than sketchup)
nurbs, UV mapping, more powerful surface editing and transformation tools, all of it.. i surely welcome it and think this could be a great way to distinguish between pro & free versions.. thing is, i'm ready for that stuff as i've been working with sketchup since version4 so i'm not too sure how i'd feel about it if i were just beginning.
that said, i highly doubt google is going to take SU in this direction and i'm not going to sit around complaining & waiting for it to happen while being fully aware that the tools i now need are already out there..[edit] and just to clarify my stance a little more, i think it would be very stupid for google to add -for example- subdivision capabilities to sketchup when i can't smoothly work through a model containing only 25,000 polygons without grouping & hiding etc.. same can be said for many of the plugins out there that are capable of adding to the poly count rather quickly.
I fullheartedly agree. It is a matter of 'first things first'.
Fixing what needs fixing and taking it from there. -
@unknownuser said:
I am only distressed by Google when they spend money trying to create markets for weak applications. There are many teams competing for development funding at Google. They must plead a case to get their ideas off the ground. "Wave" would be a good example of an application who's funding would have been better spent on Sketchup. They need to make more intelligent decisions about where the funding is going and stop dragging thier feet pushing applications that are just not going to fly.
Really bruce, wave hasnt even been released yet. Seems more than a little pre-emptive to say its "not going to fly."
To address your point more generally, i think googles willingness to put money in to things that don't immediately make money is one of the best things about them. From a users point of view it means we get very strong applications that otherwise wouldnt exist because of a lack of funding.
Take gmail for example, its leaps and bounds above the competition and i highly doubt google makes a significant profit from it.
-
It seems like there must be some middle ground here. None of us, I think, wants SketchUp to become 3ds Max with it's ridiculous learning curve, and awful tool management. But it also seems that Rubies alone aren't the best answer either as there's little collabaration from one developer to another which causes conflicts and horribly complicated UI menus.
I think it would go a long way to have SU take over a good many of the rubies and properly integrate them into the programing and UI of SU. However perhaps they could still work more like they do now where you simply download the ones you want. I see no reason that just because SU incorporates them that they must be bundled w/ the initial install. In addition there could be some basic packages that would work sort of like the Film & Stage Plugin. For example, a grouping of these Plugins that's geared towards Architects, or Landscapers, or Woodworkers, or Mechanical Engineers, or Organic modelers, or whoever.
I've also long hoped for a more distinguished Pro version of SU. In my mind the Free version is almost perfect as is because of it's quick learning curve (although they could make a sphere button perhaps). But I'd like to see some more functionality in the Pro version even if it does add some complexity.
-Brodie
-
What would help a great deal is a UI manager where plugins would register their menus and toolbar - specifying default positions - but which the user where freely able to re-arrange. That and ensuring Sketchup's UI where responsive while rubys where performing heavy processing with ability to abort operation would be a huge improvements.
-
I don't think google is "living off the backs of the bruised", but rather a incredible bad decisions in terms of project decisions.
And It started with them removing the layers toolbar in sketchup 5. After that it just come out more, at minimum, questinable decisions. From removing back bottons, not listening to users, not solving bugs, and the worst for me, the lack of diferences between the pro and free versions in terms of modeling. Don't get me wrong, layout it's good and all, but i don't want it and making users like me paying for the developtment of an another software i simply don't have use for, with people in the mean time having close to 0 new features/bug solves in sketchup it's just wrong business.
In the end, this means that because the program is basicly the same that it was 5 years ago, and there's no new stuff you could do then that can't do now in terms of modeling, texturing or animatiion, what happens to the "pro" users, like silvershadow, that need more? they move on...simply because, as good as a ruby can be, it doesn't do miracles.
And we know that it takes a lot of effort to do and maitain a software, and we woudn't mind much if all the other software stoped in time but then we see something like 3D coat with a price like that, doing complex stuff like it does, with a "one-man-team", and we can see something's wrong...
And i'm sorry guys, i also don't want a 3dsmax clone in sketchup, but i consider pushpulling more than 1 face at a time, selecting and manipulating multiple vertexs, a workable UI, sphere, cubic and cilindrical mapping as minimum uv options (not eve talking about unwarping), or suporting more than 3.3Gg of ram in the end of the year 2009, prety basic stuff needed in ANY 3D app, just to name a few...
-
Regarding other things Google makes that are free to everyone, some of those items are moneymakers in their own right such as GE, which I've seen used by news outfits on TV.
While I agree very strongly with the people that point out that the core of SU has not seen bugs cleaned up or realistic useful improvements made such as NURBS functionality, good UV tools, or multi-core support, the fact remains that the vast majority of users have a virtually fully operational 3d modeling program without any limits (save export file types and LO) at no charge! Try getting a fully operational Maya or 3DS Max from Autodesk with .OBJ capability removed and no time limit on the demo, or any other good 3d package for that matter. Let me know how that goes.
Advertisement