Google is Listening!
-
@unknownuser said:
bmike
i was trying to make a point...you know...an analogy between and old hammer and a new one related to sketchup? you get that right?basicly trying to compare a (really) old hammer with a new one like the ones in the picture. You still use old ones like that in the picture too
?but sorry about my mistake in the hammer analogy
no, i get it.
i still use tools that were designed 100+ years ago and have changed very little (hand plane, hammer, saw, etc.)
i may use modern versions, or classic tools, depending on what feels right and what fits the task.i don't see much of the criticism leveled at sketchup here as fair.
use the tool where it works, but don't be upset at your hammer because it makes a poor screw driver.
and if you find yourself driving screws, and the screwdriver plugin for your hammer just isn't cutting it, it might be time to invest in a new addition to the tool box. my hammer doesn't seem to mind when i pick up the pliers or the saw to get the job done.that said, there is certainly room for continued refinement and improvement.
the question is - what does google (who makes the tool) view as important...?
and if the sketchUcation 'community' feels otherwise - how to lobby effectively for change?
and, if the hammer doesn't grow a sliding screw driver tip and a folding saw with the next release - what is the plan for moving on? -
If we all got what we wanted, Sketchup would be this:
not very practical.
-
I feel the need to jump in and say that I completely understand DaCad.
SU is great, but it seem to be frozen in time (early 2000's).This thread got me thinking, and I DO agree to the idea of SU as a Platform.
I think IT IS the right way to go - every will tailor SU to his liking.That said, I think that as a Platform SU falls short.
it has no 64Bit (and that IS AN ISSUE if it is a platform. saying "get a studio render engine" is the exact opposite that a one-stop platform!), and Poly-count wise, it pretty much suck.I don't think that Google need to develop any more tools. I would Happily pay for good plugins by the great developers around here.
But I sure ain't going to pay 100's of dollars for a such a release.
Come'on! a Toolbar bugfix as a major feature?!Now, don't take that as a rant.
I really appreciate the fact the John spends his time reading and answering us.
(though i feel some important issues are being dodged.)
I'd really like to see SU get Better. it could be a Super-Tool.
not just for the free swarm of Google-Earth builder. it could be Super Pro. -
How about like this?
No matter where or when this hammer strikes it will still be as solid as the day it was made...plus a few dents and scratches of course
-
@emage said:
Now, don't take that as a rant.
I really appreciate the fact the John spends his time reading and answering us.
(though i feel some important issues are being dodged.)What issue do you feel I dodged?
john
. -
@marian said:
How about like this?
Nah!
One like THIS!
The Kango 900S 11kg Demolition Hammer! Note the word Demolition! (with the capital D!)
-
@emage said:
I
That said, I think that as a Platform SU falls short.
it has no 64BitYes, as we keep on hearing. But no one seems to be taking note from Mr SketchUp himself, that there is little if any difference using 64 bit.
-
@tfdesign said:
@emage said:
I
That said, I think that as a Platform SU falls short.
it has no 64BitYes, as we keep on hearing. But no one seems to be taking note from Mr SketchUp himself, that there is little if any difference using 64 bit.
Have you ever tried to render (SU+VRay) larger than 3000px? or use a high quality Arroway Textures with it?
Come on. the fact that you're not using it - doesn't mean that others can't benefit from it. as far as i care, it can be a "PRO" feature.
seems to me people are ignoring the fact that this has been requested repeatedly over the year. I'm yet to be convinced that I'm an idiot asking for something that won't do him any good.
If it's a platform - than it should host plugins nicely. not hold them back on like it's 1999 all over again. -
@jbacus said:
@emage said:
Now, don't take that as a rant.
I really appreciate the fact the John spends his time reading and answering us.
(though i feel some important issues are being dodged.)What issue do you feel I dodged?
john
.Hi, john,
Again, I'd like to express my appreciation for the time and effort you invest in this dialog.
Maybe if was the other way around (first dialog and then a release) Version 8 wouldn't be bashed so hardly.The main issue i feel neglected is simple - PERFORMANCE.
Be it x64, be it Multi-Core, be it Moonlight and Fairy Dust - I don't really care.
But a 3D package that cost 500$ a seat, and can't handle a medium project - IS a problem.
Any situation in which, I as a pro paying customer, find my Workstation handicapped by a software - That's a problem.
I Expect a software to utilize whatever Horsepower I give it - be it for Rendering / Manipulating large models / Plugging Trees(!) in my model!
maybe that should be a "PRO" version feature. Sure as hell not anybody need it. BUT SOME OF US DO!
and what gets me the most is that SU can be a Full size player in the Arch-Viz Business.
It is so close (Workflow / Interface / Ease of use) ... and yet years behind (Performance).
as much as I LOVE SU, I can't justify an upgrade to V8. -
@emage said:
Have you ever tried to render (SU+VRay) larger than 3000px? or use a high quality Arroway Textures with it?
Come on. the fact that you're not using itYes, you are right, I don't render with SU as I don't really have a need to render, but John also said earlier elsewhere that not having SU as a 64bit application doesn't mean that rendering plugins such as Lightup (I'm guessing names here) have to follow suit. Many apparently do use 64bit to render.
I would also imagine that decent rendering add-ins would be rather expensive (again I'm only guessing), but I would imagine that this would push the price range of SketchUp out of the range of many users. If I need to do any rendering, I tend to use an external renderer anyway. Modo is very good. I tend to use Cheetah3D, because it is very good value for money, as well as being easy to use (shameless C3D plug!).
Tom
-
@tfdesign said:
... I would imagine that this would push the price range of SketchUp out of the range of many users. If I need to do any rendering, I tend to use an external renderer anyway.
TomPrice wise - I am talking about Pro Users. Not the free Google-Earth Plugin.
My Render Engine of choice is Maxwell Render, which has a wonderful Studio (that is capable to handle a lot of Geometry).
But one of the Firms I work with has poorly (in my opinion) invested in VRay for SU, and they insist of using it to justify the purchase.
A lot of money for a Pro Render, with proven abilities (inside 3DSMax/Maya/C4D) - yet very much handicapped by Sketchup Environment.
Every single deadline with it, I find myself Banging my head against Technical issues and workaround (Rendering to VRImage) instead of Design and Architecture.And it's not just limited to rendering.
What if tomorrow will bring a new Ecological plugin, or an amazing high-poly tools for Sketchup,
All with heavy calculations and whatever? What kind of platform will they find? a very limited one.
And btw, for me this is a bit of trying to hold the stick on both ends -
You can't push "SU as a Platform" and "Use External Applications" at the same time.
If I need to invest in Modo, I'll (sadly) do it to replace SU and minimize/optimize my workflow, not to add another tool. -
@emage said:
The main issue i feel neglected is simple - PERFORMANCE.
I don't know what application you're comparing SketchUp against in performance terms (you haven't said), but it abundantly clear that increases in rendering performance in SketchUp are helpful to all users. Here's what I've said previously on the subject on these forums:
@jbacus said:
I want you all to understand that the dev team understands clearly how important general performance is in SketchUp. We work on it with every single release, though sometimes in ways that aren't entirely obvious from the outside. SU7.1 included an entirely new rendering pipeline that was in development for almost two years. In SU8, we reworked the way that raster image data is handled internally. We'll work on something else in the next release.
And while we certainly have a responsibility to increase performance in SketchUp at every opportunity, you must also do your part by managing the complexity of your model to fit within the 'polygon budget' of your particular system.
In game-theoretic terms, SketchUp's modeling performance is a classic "arms race". Every time we make SketchUp faster, you start making bigger models. Then we have to make SketchUp faster again, and then you start making even bigger models. There is no logical conclusion to this game where performance is infinite and you can make an infinitely large model. Eventually performance will plateau, and you'll have to learn how to work with the system as it stands.
I don't know what you would consider a "medium project", and I don't know what your hardware configuration is either. But I can tell you that we have and always will continue to improve SketchUp's performance with every release. You have to take some responsibility as well, though, and manage your model to work within the constraints of the system.
john
. -
@jbacus said:
I don't know what application you're comparing SketchUp against in performance terms
.I've Been a Maya user for about 6 Years until I enrolled into Architecture Studies.
For the past 5 Years, I've been getting away with mostly SU, but also a mix of Rhino (Not relevant - Apples & Oranges), C4D and Maya. I've been hearing great things about Modo, but haven't got a chance to actually use it more than a few minutes at a time.
I want to make clear that I'm not looking forward to Mudbox / ZBrush Billions of Polys.
But when a big % of the Component in 3DWarehouse (a big feature of SU) are like kryptonite to SU, or when trying to load Evermotion props...@jbacus said:
I don't know what you would consider a "medium project", and I don't know what your hardware configuration is either.
.It's holiday here, so I won't be in the office until monday, So I'll get back to you with numbers as to poly count.
Since it's an ongoing competition, i can't yet publish any photos, but i'll see what i can do.
My Workstation is an Win7 / i7/ 12Gb / GTX470 Machine. Build to crunch number and to render fast.
at the Office we also have an older (Yet Faster) 8-Core MacPro.@jbacus said:
In game-theoretic terms, SketchUp's modeling performance is a classic "arms race". Every time we make SketchUp faster, you start making bigger models. Then we have to make SketchUp faster again, and then you start making even bigger models. There is no logical conclusion to this game where performance is infinite and you can make an infinitely large model. Eventually performance will plateau, and you'll have to learn how to work with the system as it stands.
@jbacus said:
You have to take some responsibility as well, though, and manage your model to work within the constraints of the system.
john
.Those two comments really amuses me.
I Had a University project which we ported to Unity3D for real-time walk-through for an exhibition.
it was a whole Blvd, with over 30 Historical Building and surroundings.
SU couldn't handle the Building themselves, yet in Unity we got REAL-TIME geometry, Trees (Not Low Poly/2D) and Improved Textures (Bump/Spec which SU can't handle) at high resolution and good FPS (60+).
any modern Game Engine can Handle a Huge amount of data today, even the free ones (UDK, Unity3D).
Most 3D Packages can handle much more geometry than SU, and that's a fact.Yes, improvements have been made on version 7 & 8 - but if you take into account the increase in computer power from 2007 (SU6) until today you'd see that SU doesn't begin to utilize what is a fairly reasonable workstation TODAY.
I Realize that Google doesn't want to do heavy work on SU core.
I want to emphasize that in my humble opinion - Doing so would take SU from a "Google Earth Plugin" to worthy "Pro Arh Viz Tool", even a competitor to 3DSMax and others, thanks to it's ease of use and wide spread popularity among Architects. -
@unknownuser said:
There is no logical conclusion to this game where performance is infinite and you can make an infinitely large model.
I might argue John... Google Earth for instance is one large model right? I mean of course not really but from the perspective of me flying through it and using it, it is one large model, so perhaps one day SketchUp could use that same theory in it's modeling that you only work or see the area you are in... loading each consecutive region as you came to it.
perhaps also if we are to be responsible for our own model efficency, maybe you could add more tools to help along that line, such as the purge tool that is already available, a tool that could locate dramatically complex geometry within a simple model. or things such as ThomThom's new plugin Similar Objects http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=30143&hilit=Similar+Objects this would allow us to analyze a model for all groups or geometry that was similar and replace them with one component.
I guess what I'm saying is we expect the impossible from you... you're Google...
with each respective release of SketchUp I have noticed a great improvement in speed. and I will continue to expect that... the first thing I do when a new version comes out is open an older, clumsy model and spin it. with every release I've noticed a difference.
on the plugin conversation. I love the simplicity of SketchUp... I love being able to add the plugins I want to use. and adding them one by one I learn them as I go.
I personally have been using this software for years and have even been an admin on this site and I will still find plugins that I didn't know about... as others were saying a database of plugins with a plugin manager in SU... that would be awesome. if Google were to run a repository of plugins and evaluate each one as it is added. they could purchase plugins from the creators and sell bundles for Architecture, Wood Working, Mechanical, Engineering, Civil etc etc... this would allow another avenue of monetization for Google. it would also spur even more Ruby Writers... if they could make a residual income from writing rubies? if the million people who have downloaded Google SketchUp in the last week had instant access to rubies like they do components... it would be incredible.
SCF just celebrated 50,000 users, so of that Million users alone, a great majority of SketchUp users are missing out on a lot of great plugins.
-
i don't really know what causes the slowdown in higher poly models so bear with me in the suggestion.
i'm assuming much of the performance loss is due to giving the model a certain look at any given time (shading all faces etc.).. if that's in fact the case, i'm wondering how people would feel about a mode where the look is plain jane.. for instance, if i have a group or component (say 3d trees) that i feel is bogging down performance, i could click something such as 'optimize performance' for that group and it would dumb itself down look wise.. ie, i wouldn't have to hide it in order to speed things up.. i could see it plain as day albeit the color/shading doesn't change as i orbit the model... any style options (profiles etc which may cause slowdowns) are disengaged from that component..
or maybe, if the above is even sensible to begin with, there could also be a mode in which the entire model is dumbed down and only when you open a group or component does the look become the sketchup look.is this making any sense or am i heading down the wrong path? how would some of you high poly modelers feel about this type of option?
-
I feel like that would be great. My limited insight in how all this works makes me wonder if there would be a big wait while the suspended refresh completes after you finish navigating.
In the meantime my attitude(modeling development) seems to be coming around to trying to simplify my stuff by reducing poly's, or doing a lot more thinking about my approach. -
@unknownuser said:
After reading the last posts i'm feeling like the bad guy in here...
i dunno daca, i don't think you're coming across as the bad guy or whatever.. honestly, i want what you want and i think a lot of other people do as well.. thing is, i really think that the best way to accomplish such a thing is to start from scratch or nearly from scratch..
for a lot of the power user wishes, i think more programming has to occur than "add this to sketchup".. i would think the core app needs reprogrammed in order to really fix some of the issues.. anything else is just adding even more duct tape to your hammer analogy..
but hey, why dig in and rewrite the core just to get better performance? let's see some root level nurbs in there.. 64bit.. etc,etc,etc.
you're talking about a whole new app and while i think the sketchup programmers are capable of building such an app, i don't think they're going to do it under google.. why would google want to make one he11 of an architectural modeler that sizes up well against the heavy hitters? i can't think of any google software that does this..the thing with sketchup (that i feel not enough people either realize or admit to) is that it handles 70-80% of my drawing needs very well.. that's with just the standard tools or minor modifications of the standard tools.. i design/build some relatively complex pieces/shapes in my work but i imagine if i did say houses, sketchup could handle even more of my workload..
most of the stuff the power users want is the polish, they (and i) want to be able to handle the other 25% percent of needed task but those things come at a much higher cost (system, sophistication of the app, money of course,user knowledge/experience) than what it takes to do most of your drawing.. [analogy- i can buy a car for $10,000 that will go 100 mph but i can't spend $20g and get a car going 200 mph]
in this thread, my stance boils down to enjoying and preferring sketchup for most of my needs.. when i get to the point of needing something that sketchup can't do, i don't cuss at sketchup, i use something else that can accomplish what needs to be done.. but realize, that other something can take care of my more pressing needs but it can't handle the majority of my work in a similar fashion as sketchup..
i think it's a bit shortsighted to expect sketchup8 or 9 to be some kind of amazing, all-in-one, arch/viz package giving us everything we want.. if you're going to continue using sketchup, i think it's best to get in line with or at least try to understand the developers wishes or expectations of the app.. ultimately, that's the direction the software is going to go in so for me, it's a matter of recognizing it's strengths (and there are many of them) and utilizing those aspects but when it comes time to do something that sketchup can't handle, i switch to another method.. it's that easy (ok, well, sort of "it's that easy"
)that's not to say sketchup can't be improved on because it can and it is.. i think it's highly more productive and less stressful to think of ideas that can be realistically integrated into sketchup and further refining it's use while staying true to it's key values..
and honestly, if the suteam 'added 64bit' then i might infact start showing some anger.. if they're going to 'add 64bit' then i want a 64bit app built from the ground up.. you don't just add 64bit to sketchup or add multicore support and hope to see any real gains.. you can however add some more simplistic things fairly easily which fully enhance the strengths of sketchup
-
@mitcorb said:
I feel like that would be great. My limited insight in how all this works makes me wonder if there would be a big wait while the suspended refresh completes after you finish navigating.
well, that's what it does now.. it's constantly updating itself and providing us with a rendered view.. i'm more or less suggesting the user can choose when the refresh occurs instead of it happening constantly.
for instance, if you have a material inside a group that's checked as optimized, the material will just be the base color at all times until the user decides to tell it to act normal. -
@unknownuser said:
i don't really know what causes the slowdown in higher poly models so bear with me in the suggestion.
i'm assuming much of the performance loss is due to giving the model a certain look at any given time (shading all faces etc.).. if that's in fact the case, i'm wondering how people would feel about a mode where the look is plain jane.. for instance, if i have a group or component (say 3d trees) that i feel is bogging down performance, i could click something such as 'optimize performance' for that group and it would dumb itself down look wise.. ie, i wouldn't have to hide it in order to speed things up.. i could see it plain as day albeit the color/shading doesn't change as i orbit the model... any style options (profiles etc which may cause slowdowns) are disengaged from that component..
or maybe, if the above is even sensible to begin with, there could also be a mode in which the entire model is dumbed down and only when you open a group or component does the look become the sketchup look.is this making any sense or am i heading down the wrong path? how would some of you high poly modelers feel about this type of option?
Your 'optimize performance' idea would be a possible improvement but it would then emphasize another bottleneck that hasn't been mentioned yet. The Maxwell render plugin (and probably others) has the ability to use 'proxies' where you have some simple geometry component, say a box named PalmTree_Proxy. THen, you have your high poly object named PalmTree in the same model on a hidden layer. That way it doesn't slow down the viewport because it's hidden, and at render time Maxwell will substitute the high poly object for the proxy.
It works just fine but for some reason SU file sizes get verylarge with even 1 or 2 high poly objects (as compared to 3ds Max for example which can hold quite a lot of polys without getting too large). Combine that relatively minor inconvenience (file size) with the much large inconvenience which is save times, and it really bogs you down. To me, SU's save times once you start getting into higher poly's becomes almost as burdensome as viewport issues because it's something you have no control over. And again, I will compare it to 3ds Max which saves even huge models very quickly.
While I wouldn't compare SU's modeling capability to 3ds Max's, I think this comparison is only fair because if you're claiming that SU is purposely a much less complex program than 3ds Max and so it's modeling tools shouldn't be as complex as Max's, then shouldn't that lack of complexity also translate into smaller file sizes and faster save times?
-Brodie
-
gotta admit, file size has never crossed my mind as any sort of concern.. storage is way too cheap (relatively) to even worry about it.. i mean, one or two raw frames from a 20+megabeam digi cam = the same file size as a big model and some of those people are shooting hundreds if not thousands of pictures a day.
save times too.. that's like 5 seconds at the most for me (but if you're saying it takes more than say 30 seconds to save files then yeah, i'd be concerned too but i've never had a file do that.)..
point being, if i could have a 2million poly model [exaggeration] perform the same way as a 20,000 then i'd surely accept a longer save time as a consequence.. pretty much a no brainer tradeoff
Advertisement