Google is Listening!
-
@unknownuser said:
In defense of SketchUp in general, not in particular v8, I find that when I turn off Edges and Profiles, or more generally speaking all Style related aspects,
Yes, style effects can slow down a model as badly as shadows. (even Colour by Material and Colour by Axis slows things down as SU has to draw the edges in multiple GL operations) I usually have a "Modelspace" scene that turns on my optimized modelling style with all effects off. I model with that style and only swap to scenes with effects on when I'm ready to export.
-
@notareal said:
@unknownuser said:
...but still, what are you going to gain from more memory?
Maybe not important for everyone, but one simply reason for me, going to 64-bit SU would allow 64-bit renderer work in context of SU. It's already possible to create a SU scene that will not render with SU integrated 32-bit renderer, because of memory restrictions.
Sorry, but I find it amusing that you are still hammering through the 64-bit arguement even after it has been explained that you won't really notice any difference in speed improvement, then to start on about rendering, when you have links to renderers in you sig! Whatssup? Are these no good?
-
First of all John (hope you don't mind i call you by the first name) thanks for your reply to my post. And i bet it's not easy for you to show up in here and defend Sketchup right now with all of us here. Agreeing or not with you, that deserves my respect.
After saying this, i still don't know if all those guys are lying, if the SK engine is on par with others, and if there isn't one single item in it that would benefict from the new x64/multicore or even better GPU/OpenGL use...i thought my post was pretty clear and that would allow us to discuss and better understand that point (http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30586&start=60#p268908).
In modeling/texturing terms, you'll have to forgive me but, i just realised this is getting a bit surreal for me... Reading all your posts now, my conclusion is, that you, Google guys, with 10 years experience on Sketchup and 3D, that know what's best for us and how we should work, think that getting textures on streetview or google Earth (that by the way IT COULD ALLREADY BE DONE one way or another) that gives us great quality images (beeing ironic) is better, than say, spherical mapping? fix the shadow bug? There's people out there "fighting" for "real time 3D texture painting with multiple layers" and we are asking, in the end of 2010, for things like a basic "unwarp UV", not even that, but spherical mapping? Is this for real? Am i the only one that thinks this is a bit surreal, like i'm in the twilight zone? in 10 years we still can't do something as basic as this, that could already be done even before SK existed? it's like buying car today and just having mirrors on one side, like in the 80'...
Right now, instead of a guy that's suppost to understand the needs of someone working with 3D meshs, i feel like i'm talking to someone that never did 3D...sorry if this sound disrespectfull but i'm just beeing honest here.
-
What I would like to know:
How many SketchUp programmers are on the 'Development Team'. I think there might be a misperception that since Google owns the product that there are a large number of people committed to SU development...and hence the expectations of serious, comprehensive enhancements to the program with each new release. If I was to hazard a guess, and measure the 'Development Team's enhancement contributions in a year, vs one lone ruby programmer like TIG, or Fredo, or thomthom...I'm thinking not many. Sorry for the slap Google, but these guys are seriously kicking your butt.
How many SketchUp 'Pro' users are licensed, and are there in fact enough users who will likely pay for an upgrade to warrant investing the time and money into the program that we 'Pros' keep asking for. It would seem to me that the majority of users are on the 'free' version of SketchUp...while kudos goes to Google for their generosity on this one, I would suspect it serves little to motivate them to respond with enthusiastic gusto to 'Pro' users requests.
How many individuals are there who use 3D modelling software for visualization that have little or no interest in advanced rendering. Certainly the number of increasingly amazing photo-realistic rendering software offerings doesn't indicate a lack of interest in this area does it? I always thought the two kind of went hand in hand, and apparently a lot of 3D modelling software developers do as well. Isn't that a forward looking reason enough to give attention to better memory handling, more robust UV tools, and at least some consideration to modifying meshes without having to draw hidden lines on planes?
I love SketchUp, and Layout too for that matter... but currently I love the Ruby developers more.
-
@thomthom said:
@unknownuser said:
In defense of SketchUp in general, not in particular v8, I find that when I turn off Edges and Profiles, or more generally speaking all Style related aspects,
Yes, style effects can slow down a model as badly as shadows. (even Colour by Material and Colour by Axis slows things down as SU has to draw the edges in multiple GL operations) I usually have a "Modelspace" scene that turns on my optimized modelling style with all effects off. I model with that style and only swap to scenes with effects on when I'm ready to export.
For maximum performance, you should stick to rendering styles that can be entirely handled by your GPU. For quick tips on optimizing SketchUp performance, see the "Making SketchUp run faster" Help Center article. For excellent and exhaustive detail, have a look at the "How do I make SketchUp run faster?" page on the SketchUp Sages site.
john
. -
@fountainhead said:
I love SketchUp, and Layout too for that matter... but currently I love the Ruby developers more.
Too true -- and I suppose the best thing the Sketchup development team could do to improve Sketchup is give the ruby developers any tools they need.
Best,
Jason. -
@unknownuser said:
Right now, instead of a guy that's suppost to understand the needs of someone working with 3D meshs, i feel like i'm talking to someone that never did 3D...sorry if this sound disrespectfull but i'm just beeing honest here.
You are being a bit disrespectful to me and my background, but my architectural education has gifted me with a very thick skin. I do think that you're confusing the specialized needs of archviz professionals with the generalized needs of all users of SketchUp. I talk to lots of heavy SketchUp users whose eyes would cross if I asked them about unwarping their UV's.
Also, you're assuming that there is one true method for dealing with "3D meshs" that the SketchUp team is either too stubborn, distracted or incompetent to implement for you. That's a little disrespectful, too– and it is kind standing in the way of moving this conversation forward as well.
There are certainly things we can add to SketchUp that will improve its usefullness for archviz pros without losing sight of the general needs of all SketchUp users. Itemizing those things and discussing them in detail would move this conversation forward.
john
. -
@unknownuser said:
First of all John (hope you don't mind i call you by the first name) thanks for your reply to my post. And i bet it's not easy for you to show up in here and defend Sketchup right now with all of us here. Agreeing or not with you, that deserves my respect.
After saying this, i still don't know if all those guys are lying, if the SK engine is on par with others, and if there isn't one single item in it that would benefict from the new x64/multicore or even better GPU/OpenGL use...i thought my post was pretty clear and that would allow us to discuss and better understand that point (http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30586&start=60#p268908).
In modeling/texturing terms, you'll have to forgive me but, i just realised this is getting a bit surreal for me... Reading all your posts now, my conclusion is, that you, Google guys, with 10 years experience on Sketchup and 3D, that know what's best for us and how we should work, think that getting textures on streetview or google Earth (that by the way IT COULD ALLREADY BE DONE one way or another) that gives us great quality images (beeing ironic) is better, than say, spherical mapping? fix the shadow bug? There's people out there "fighting" for "real time 3D texture painting with multiple layers" and we are asking, in the end of 2010, for things like a basic "unwarp UV", not even that, but spherical mapping? Is this for real? Am i the only one that thinks this is a bit surreal, like i'm in the twilight zone? in 10 years we still can't do something as basic as this, that could already be done even before SK existed? it's like buying car today and just having mirrors on one side, like in the 80'...
Right now, instead of a guy that's suppost to understand the needs of someone working with 3D meshs, i feel like i'm talking to someone that never did 3D...sorry if this sound disrespectfull but i'm just beeing honest here.
Haha, +1.
It reminds me of an ongoing conversation I had with a work friend awhile back who was a Rhino user and touted it's wonders every chance he got (what SU user hasn't had to defend it at some time or another?). He was always showing me things like creating spirals or lofts or what he felt were complicated and impressive modeling techniques and asking if SU could do that. Almost always I was able to reply that yes it could with one of the plugins...but the whole time I was thinking, "God don't let him do something simple like UV map a sphere!"
-Brodie
-
-
Hey John,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you are working with textures you are working with UV's -- all else is semantics.
If you are selling a pro version of your software then you cannot afford to underestimate the intelligence of the professional user base -- if they are not hip to the lingo of the larger 3D world then it is the responsibility of the manual and educators like myself to clarify the issue... which is exactly what I did in my training approach and will continue to do.
It is possible to cover complex topics in a simplistic way and bring users to a more personally powerful place professionally... by catering to ignorance all you do is reinforce competitive weakness that will ultimately remove them from the playing field.
Best,
Jason. -
@fountainhead said:
How many SketchUp programmers are on the 'Development Team'.
We don't share detailed information with the public on this question, but the team is about the same size that it was when we were acquired by Google. We don't have hundreds of folks working on SketchUp.
@fountainhead said:
How many SketchUp 'Pro' users are licensed, and are there in fact enough users who will likely pay for an upgrade to warrant investing the time and money into the program that we 'Pros' keep asking for.
We don't share detailed information about the size of our user base, but there were well over 1m unique activations of SketchUp in the last week. There are plenty of Pro users to keep us investing in SketchUp Pro's development. That said, the ArchViz Pro segment doesn't represent a majority of Pro users.
@fountainhead said:
How many individuals are there who use 3D modelling software for visualization that have little or no interest in advanced rendering.
Hard to put a number to this one. But given the diversity of photorealistic rendering plugins for SketchUp available on the market today, I think that it is clear there is a belief that advanced rendering still goes hand-in-hand with 3D modeling. Our experience with SketchUp does suggest that there are many more 'sketch models' created than 'renderings' over the course of an average architectural design project. I'm keen to help rendering apps work as well as they can with SketchUp, as I recognize that sometimes the rendering, while done less frequently, can turn out to be the most important part of the project.
@fountainhead said:
I love SketchUp, and Layout too for that matter... but currently I love the Ruby developers more.
We have something in common, then. I think the Ruby developers are doing a great job, too. We build and maintain a very high-level and capable API precisely to support the work of these folks, and they are doing a stellar job providing you all with specialized and powerful tools that you ask for.
This is collaboration, not competition... and I think it is working pretty well. We get to keep the core SketchUp app clean and simple for the majority of users, while at the same time you get to add specialized tools as you need them. The Ruby community, with help from our API, is the glue that binds this all together.
john
. -
Please Google, drop that Google Earth stuff in SU, make it an own "geo"-version or something. Who wants to draw the world in 3d these days, for fun, a few people? I can't hardly find topic on this forum that's goes about "how do I model my village?". Who goes wild by the new "better location"-option, or to see the world in color.....well I don't. I like the new solids-function though...
-
Pep, I think you're not realizing some of the benefits of the google earth incorporation. Professional benefits and not just 'i want to model my village' stuff.
-
@jbacus said:
@thomthom said:
@unknownuser said:
In defense of SketchUp in general, not in particular v8, I find that when I turn off Edges and Profiles, or more generally speaking all Style related aspects,
Yes, style effects can slow down a model as badly as shadows. (even Colour by Material and Colour by Axis slows things down as SU has to draw the edges in multiple GL operations) I usually have a "Modelspace" scene that turns on my optimized modelling style with all effects off. I model with that style and only swap to scenes with effects on when I'm ready to export.
For maximum performance, you should stick to rendering styles that can be entirely handled by your GPU. For quick tips on optimizing SketchUp performance, see the "Making SketchUp run faster" Help Center article. For excellent and exhaustive detail, have a look at the "How do I make SketchUp run faster?" page on the SketchUp Sages site.
john
.Noticed this from that page you linked:
@unknownuser said:
JPEGs are just fine. If you import images into your model, use JPEG images rather than TIFF images. TIFF images tend to have large file sizes and take more computing resources to display.
Now, I thought that the format did not matter when it came to displaying the image. I thought that once it was loaded the bitmpa was uncompressed in memory. But am I wrong? Are the GPU's optimized to make use of JPEG data?
I'd always imagined that compressed files where slower to load, as they had to be decompressed before they could be used. I imagine reading that for game optimisation tips...
-
@jbacus said:
You are being a bit disrespectful to me and my background, but my architectural education has gifted me with a very thick skin. I do think that you're confusing the specialized needs of archviz professionals with the generalized needs of all users of SketchUp. I talk to lots of heavy SketchUp users whose eyes would cross if I asked them about unwarping their UV's.
As i said i wasn't trying to be disrespectfull, just honest. My skin is as thick as yours also (architect too), and my area of work, in the last years, have been more wide than just archviz, so i'm not just talking for the sake of talk...
@jbacus said:
Also, you're assuming that there is one true method for dealing with "3D meshs" that the SketchUp team is either too stubborn, distracted or incompetent to implement for you. That's a little disrespectful, too– and it is kind standing in the way of moving this conversation forward as well.
I know there's not just one way to deal with 3D, right now if i'm not mistaken there's surface modeling, solid modeling, nurbs modeling and voxel sculpting (if you want you can add normal 3D sculpting too). And by the way, SK is still a surface modeler, even with "solid" tools, because calling it "solid" and add a volume calculator, don't turn the model to a solid, because if i section cut a SK "solid" it's still empty inside, just like a surface...
And just by saying something like this it should show you i'm not so ignorant or stupid in some matters too, so please don't assume that either.@jbacus said:
There are certainly things we can add to SketchUp that will improve its usefullness for archviz pros without losing sight of the general needs of all SketchUp users. Itemizing those things and discussing them in detail would move this conversation forward.
So how, losing time doing better UV tools, wouldn't be good for the majority, or even all, that do 3D with sketchup, especially Pro users? For archviz, industrial design, characther modeling, game graphics, organic modeling? I don't think there's one area that didn't went trough a situation, on time or other, where better uv tools weren't need it...
So to sum things, i still don't have an answer to my first post related to new software architecture, or an opinion about the sugestions i made to SK beeing wide enough and usefull for everybody ( http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30586&start=60#p268908 ), and i just discovered that spherical mapping it's a too wide and complex thing to most SK users, and so not need it.
Better forget about unwarp uvs and new or updated modeling and animation tools... -
Jeff I do believe that there're benefits. But right now I just feel that Google puts more effort in making SU a tool for "Google Earth Content creation" than an architectural- or model tool. And you can't deny, SU started to sell their software in a box with "architectural" visualization tool on it. What is the real improvement? Come on...angular dimensions in LayOut and the "solids"-tools that they have bought from Whaats? I mean....I'm stunned. Where's the bezier tool? Where's the push-pull tool on non-flat surfaces? Where is the bevel/chamfer tool? Where is the bend tool? Where is the Subdivide and Smooth tool? All tools that are essential in SketchUp and that are made by plugin developers, but needs to be standard in SU to become a "decent" architectural tool.
Okay, I'm a teacher in architecture and at the moment I really doubt to suggest students to work with SU. It stucks to be a tool with a "freeware" abilities....I'm sorry to say, but organic architecture is still almost undo-able in SU...It's a shame because the UI of SU is UNIQUE... -
@pep75 said:
...but needs to be standard in SU to become a "decent" architectural tool.
Those tools are surely very useful and should not be missing in an architectural program, but SketchUp is not [only] an architectural visualisation tool, if it is supposed to be an all-purpose 3D app for everyone, we have to accept that.
Would we like SketchUp to be bloated with tools that we don't need, because someone might need them? We should understand the plugins as part of SketchUp's featureset (although not developed by Google), but surely they are neither hacks nor workarounds but mature tools except that they are not in the default installation. -
@pep75 said:
Where's the bezier tool? Where's the push-pull tool on non-flat surfaces? Where is the bevel/chamfer tool? Where is the bend tool? Where is the Subdivide and Smooth tool? All tools that are essential in SketchUp and that are made by plugin developers, but needs to be standard in SU to become a "decent" architectural tool.Okay, I'm a teacher in architecture and at the moment I really doubt to suggest students to work with SU. It stucks to be a tool with a "freeware" abilities....I'm sorry to say, but organic architecture is still almost undo-able in SU...It's a shame because the UI of SU is UNIQUE...
Well we have the plugins and they work and we should be glad we didn't have to wait for the SU team to implement them.
I do agree that some measure of integration for some of those vital functions should be added to the core SU, but knowing some of those plugins you should be more aware that organic modeling can be achieved and I don't think having the same exact functions as the plugins, natively inside SU, improves modeling in any way, maybe only stability and relibility.
I'm not an architectural expert by any means but I don't see any insurmountable obstacle in doing organic architecture with SU, it may not be perfect or 100% accurate but I think most stuff is doable and you should try harder or let your students find they're own solutions, I think you'll be amazed.I do understand your view, I too feel a little disappointed at the level of innovation in the new releases and also the direction they took, but having said that, the new improvements are ok and dare I say it...a bit cool.
-
I love SU, been in love with it since the day it found me, back in version 4 or somthing.......
SU is a great "sketch and modelling" software wich has a lot of great features, and with the superb induviduals that makes all the amazing plugins, taking sketchup to new heights.
I want to reverse the question and say: Where do GOOGLE want to take Skectchup ?? A better 3d modelling program for Design, architecture and engineering, or a free software easy to use for everyone so we can make a model of our houses and post it on google earth ?? Or are trying to have it both ways ??
I understand i write this a little black/white and sarcastic, but U`ll get the idea of the question....
I dont want to offend anyone with this question, i just want to know google`s point of view of SU future.
I still love SU and use it every day for work and for fun, will allways use it due to the greaaat plugins showing up... It`s like christmas every so often. so i cant lay it to rest, just have to wait and see what comes up next in the plugin forum.
-
@aerilius said:
Does the Ruby API allow to set a color value to a pixel of a texture? Or to reload a texture image very fast?
#1 - Yes and no. I worked through the PNG specification and have an .rb library (that works with zlib.so) to read .png pixels. It's a matter of converting XYZ to UV to get the (approximate) pixel at a pick point in the model. That, and time for Ruby to read a .png
#2 - I have an as-yet-unreleased plugin for this. It needs a bit of polish yet.
Advertisement