SU 9 Wishlist
-
@tfdesign said:
:shock:
Coming soon I guess.. Not sure when though..
What? Where?? v9??
-
@mpowell1234567890 said:
I like the Sphere tool and other cubical shapes added to Sketchup 9 free version.
Get the SketchyPhysics Ruby. It has several generic shapes with good detail, even if you don't use its animation capability.
Or, make a few versions of the shapes you want, and put them into your component library to be used as needed.
-
@tfdesign said:
@jgb said:
MY desktop.... Where would you suggest???
When I usually say "Rapid Prototyping Machine", my friends think I'm talking about this;
How about burning some of those books? You could dump the 486 PC for starters!
Seriously; what is that? It looks like the intercostal ring for a heavy-lift rocket, but not quite.
I've seen Rapid Proto's and the small ones are usually about the size of a washing machine. The space frame machine in TFDESIGN's photo is new to me. But I don't think it would be suitable to make bits for most of my projects, even if I scaled them down a lot. And, if I could use a RPM for the few smaller projects, the problem becomes one of surface smoothness and fit tolerance for the assemblies.
Also, burning books (or better yet, recycling them) and dumping the 486 board (and others like it) would entail getting to them and/or finding them first. Too much like work for a lazy SOB like me. Besides, I've saved all my old PC boards and cards, even defunct harddrives, for sentimental reasons..... They cost me money.
But honestly, the real reason I saved them is I had long ago planned to make a wall "mural" of them in a chronological order, but there ain't no empty wall in my office now. Ceiling maybe.... now there's an idea.
-
If lighting is added in sketchup, no one requires an external rendering engine. Adding video clips as texture would also be a great idea.
-
@ramasubbu said:
If lighting is added in sketchup, no one requires an external rendering engine.
I disagree - adding light sources to SketchUp is no replacement for rendering. (Not saying I wouldn't want lights in SU - they would most likely be of great use, for sketchy illustrations and I'd think render engines could make use of them as well.)
-
@tfdesign said:
@serge.n said:
Which announcements?
But I guess being a Windows user, you probably would have missed that?
Autodesk big announcement huh? That is not so big. They have already abandoned that platform once. And there would have to be a lot of 3rd party stuff for AutoCAD make the jump to the Mac as well for it to become a serious platform. From the reports I have seen it is buggy.
I have a better Idea... Add the necessary tools to SU layout so we don't need AutoCad in the first place! It is time for a new Sheriff (Google) to come to town (CAD world)! Anyone that has had to deal with the likes of AutoDesk should be able to confirm this!
64 bit would be nice
Support for the complete .rpc file format would be even better though! -
@serge.n said:
Yes, I did. Well I'd rather write that I didn't realized that's such a big achievement. And what about Revit? Indeed, I imagine Autodesk still have Autocad on Windows due to legacy issue. If they could they would have made everybody switch for Revit or Inventor.
Yeah Autodesk certainly desires everyone one to switch to Revit and Civil3d. They have no Intellicad competition there and the price is double that of AutoCAD. From a Landscape Architects point of view that idea is a huge waste of money. Especially since Revit has no way to deal with curbs! I think Autodesk has been sniff'n a little to much of it's own marketing poop!
-
Its simple for me....
incorporate some of the wonderful plugins developed in this forum as 'standard'... then pay those developers a huge lump of cash or perhaps give them some google shares for making sketchup better...
and thats it.There are so many good ideas floating around here that I often wonder why the 'collective' of plugin writers haven't got together to develop their own system/software... it could be good.
Dave
-
Anyone else wishing for an easy way to bisect angles?
-
@catmando said:
Anyone else wishing for an easy way to bisect angles?
there's already a sorta easy way to to that.
what's you're current method?(just in case your current method is the same one i'm thinking and you're just wanting an even easier method
) -
@catmando said:
Anyone else wishing for an easy way to bisect angles?
Make a guide-line through one line...
Select the guide-line and Rotate+Ctrl to rotate-copy it about the apex point [intersection of two guides, if needed you should have made both] from its location back to the second line - immediately type /2 and you have bisected the angle [/3 in thirds etc...][attachment=0:n9n4l6m9]<!-- ia0 -->Capture.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:n9n4l6m9]
-
Yeah, same technique as I was thinking though I generally wouldn't use a guideline. Just select one of the lines forming the angle then copy/rotate it to the other. Then /2
-
@unknownuser said:
Yeah, same technique as I was thinking though I generally wouldn't use a guideline. Just select one of the lines forming the angle then copy/rotate it to the other. Then /2
Fine if you want to repeat the line at half angle.
My method returns a guide that's the bisector, for more general use...
Depends what he wants to do - either one is pretty simple - I find it hard to image a simpler way... I could write a script... activate tool, pick apex, pick first line, pick second line etc... as many picks as the rotate-copy method ? with less options for what you are getting...
-
@escapeartist said:
64 bit support
Have you ever had SU run out of memory? (just pure SketchUp, no render engine plugin.)@escapeartist said:
Dare I beat the multi-core horse one more time?
Why not just ask for better performance? That's what you want, right? Instead of asking for a particular technical implementation that can't be applied to most tasks. (most 3d apps that boost this feature refer to the render engine they bundle.) -
@thomthom said:
Have you ever had SU run out of memory? (just pure SketchUp, no render engine plugin.)
Like exporting giant images, or heavy calculations operations (intersect) on giant models, or maybe for a better platform for developers to program for?
@thomthom said:
Why not just ask for better performance? That's what you want, right? Instead of asking for a particular technical implementation that can't be applied to most tasks. (most 3d apps that boost this feature refer to the render engine they bundle.)
Like multipe frame export in movie sequences, or any calculation that can be paralelized (like multiples modeling operations - multiples faces push pull, and doing better modeling tools in the process...and i've just make this up...can't imagine what a paid professional could do) or maybe (again) for a better platform for developers to program for? (since right now users seem more dependent on plugins developers like you
than google)But right now i would trade any of that for real UV/Maping tools...
-
@unknownuser said:
or heavy calculations operations (intersect) on giant models
You've run out of memory while intersecting? You've seen Sketchup.exe reach 2GB+? (or in the case of SU8M1 under 64bit OSX, over 4GB?)
@unknownuser said:
or maybe for a better platform for developers to program for?
How does 64bit make it a better platform?
I gives you more memory to play with - but which plugins has had that problem?@unknownuser said:
Like exporting giant images
Fair enough, this has been an issue where memory seemed to be an issue. But in M1 they made SU LAA and in addition they changed the method they used to export the images. And now you can export larger images. But, this is the clue, how are you use 64bit is the solution? Maybe a different algorithm in whatever you have problems with will work much better than just adding more RAM.
For developers it's better to hear the feature, end result of what the users want - not to be just told to do a technical implementation without knowing what the user expects from it.
So many times when people have asked for 64bit they appear to be under the impression that 64bit makes everything run faster. While in reality it might as well just make things slower.@unknownuser said:
Like multipe frame export in movie sequences
You see, there's the core of it. That's what you want faster. Straight to the point instead of just an ambiguous request for multicore.
@unknownuser said:
paralelized (like multiples modeling operations - multiples faces push pull,
You're sure this can be parallelized because...?
I'm poking at this not to be mean, but because 64bit and mulitcore request is always just a cloak for something else - something more concrete where people has just made the assumption that 64bit or multicore is the solution. And as long as one clings to these assumptions and keep on hoping that they'll be there in the next release one only puts oneself up for disappointment.
Concrete requests like "Faster exports", "Faster explode", "Faster intersect", "Being able to export larger images" is so much more relevant and useful to the developers. Let them take care of the technical.
-
@thomthom said:
@escapeartist said:
64 bit support
Have you ever had SU run out of memory? (just pure SketchUp, no render engine plugin.)Yes. I've had occasions where implementing a plugin has consumed 3+ GB of my 4 GB system. SU crashes or I have to kill the process and restart what I was doing.
@unknownuser said:
@escapeartist said:
Dare I beat the multi-core horse one more time?
Why not just ask for better performance? That's what you want, right? Instead of asking for a particular technical implementation that can't be applied to most tasks. (most 3d apps that boost this feature refer to the render engine they bundle.)I'd be happy with that too, but with most cores in PCs these days leveling off at the ~3 GHz range and the status quo seems to be implementing more cores instead of faster ones I don't know how much improvement can be obtained on a single 3 or 4 GHz core. If it can be done, great! I'm all for it.
Please don't take this as me knocking SU or any of the devs, I've used everything from Maya to 3DSM and lots inbetween, this is by far the best and easiest to learn modeling app out there, and with all the free plugins there is simply no comparison. While I have no desire to turn SU into Maya, I think that would defeat the purpose behind SU, I keep wondering if there aren't ways to provide some similar functions and performance as these higher end application while maintaining the spirit and intent behind SU.
-
I'll keep it simple and post my wishes:
Advanced UV Tools and mapping. (sooo important)
64 bit support
Support higher polycount
Dare I beat the multi-core horse one more time?Consider working with the plugin devs here on the forums to integrate some of them and make it seamless.
EDIT: Add tools to better perform organic modeling (includes higher polycount). I don't necessarily mean NURBS, but any tools and performance enhancement to do this would be great.
Support quad modeling instead of tri based as a system setting. Better for animation and I personally find it easier to model organically and UV map.
-
@escapeartist said:
Yes. I've had occasions where implementing a plugin has consumed 3+ GB of my 4 GB system. SU crashes or I have to kill the process and restart what I was doing.
Render plugin or normal SketchUp plugin tool?
-
@thomthom said:
...
I don't think you're seeing the big picture thomthom. big pictures, movie exports they can use multicore/64bis, but if that something that it's in the platorm and developers can use maybe instead of big pictures there could be a plugin that would handle big pictures for textures, with real time editiing and painting with baking them in the texture map in the 3D model at the end, and instead of movies maybe a plugin for better animation that could then export the movie with more options at the codecs, or maybe a basic sculpt tools suite without the lag in the brushs that the current plugins suffer from...And the list could go on.
And it seems everything around SK goes by workarounds...yes there maybe be a work around for exporting larger images (like exporting partial images and put them together after) but you will allways reach a point where that workaround brakes, a pixel is info and info takes memory and like it or not you'll need memory in the end. Workaround for texturing, workaround for shadows (thank god no more of that), work around for modeling, hell we even have workarounds for toolbars! Isn't it about time we got something a litle more professional?
And Btw why does render engines plugins don't count? because the blame is from developers that should all build everything a studio apart? does that count for physics engines, fur and texture editing or baking softwares? we brag that sk is great because we can add plugins as we like but then we put others apart...
Oh and i'm no programer but by following logic, if we use multicore to calculate intersections in lines (rays) from point A (light) to a point B (objects) to get a shape in the end (shadow) i think that logic can be aplied in intersecting lines in 3D models...(keep in mind i'm no programer so this could be completly wrong, but i think i remember something about luxology using multicore in intersect...)
Advertisement