Google is Listening!
-
@johnsenior1973 said:
@jason_maranto said:
Man, all the whining going on you'd think that Sketchup costs money... In my mind the only people who have a right to gripe is the Sketchup Pro users and Ruby Plugin developers.
For all you users who want to gripe about the normal FREE version of Sketchup not being whatever you think it should be: Why don't you create something so useful and extensible as Sketchup(very unlikely) and then give it away for free, and see how magnanimous you feel when the unwashed masses come to your door bearing pitchforks demanding your head.
It's FREE! how ungrateful can you be?
Sketchup Pro users please disregard this message as it is not aimed at you.
Best,
Jason.The same stupid argument you make against the free users can be made against the Pro users. Why don't the pro users go out and create the Sketchup Pro beater and sell that for $500?
I think we all have a right to voice opinions and frustration. Whether we pay for the product or not (I happen to be a Pro user) Google still gets something out of the deal. Free users are still improving Google's image and foothold in the marketplace. They also probably account for the vast majority of user built Google Earth buildings which is like having your own huge workforce of elves (the shoe business has all gone to China afterall) which work for "free".
I for one, would be very much in favor, though, of a much wider gap between the free and Pro versions. I understand the free version being created such that anyone can sit down and use it (and SU has done a wonderful job in that area). But I'd like to see the Pro version begin to be just that, a version for professionals (more professional tools, options, custimization, performance, etc.). I don't think anyone could fault SU for that.
For example, there has been a comment made by Google (John I believe) that some performance upgrade or other was unfeasible because of SketchUp's extremely broad user base which may not have access to good quality GPU's and such. I see validity in that for the free version, but I think it's reasonable to assume that for Pro's or any enthusiast willing to shell out $500, it's a different story.
-Brodie
-
@pixero said:
As I said, SU is a great modelling tool and I believe you should rely on the community to enhance it by giving them even more access to SketchUp api.
nod vigorously
@pixero said:
Who knows, Thomthom might even come up with a solution for better UV tools.
Have you been poking around in my hard-drive?
-
What would really make me happy is:
**1) support for high poly models, even just better navigation.
-
better texturing tools, projection is very limited (yeah i know thomthom plugins work but we need more, I'd love to 'paint' textures onto surfaces)
-
ability to open SketchUp at whatever reolution you like. So when it starts up you could just type 1024x768 for example. at the moment it opens at 1024 x739.
-
multi-core support. How come it doesn't have this already?
-
all plugins in one place.....a website that is. Like a list on the google wesbite that will link you to all the plugins available.
-
Better support for textures, sometimes when you turn textures on it can cause the model to crash or move VERY slowly (I know this has been improved, but still its pretty bad)**
Other than that, congratulations on a fantastically intuitive modeling software
-
-
-
@unknownuser said:
-
support for high poly models, even just better navigation.
-
better texturing tools, projection is very limited (yeah i know thomthom plugins work but we need more, I'd love to 'paint' textures onto surfaces)
These two points are my greatest desires also... texture layering and editing through a paint tool within Sketchup would be tremendous... Proper supported UV unwrapping would be enough however...
-
-
@olishea said:
, I'd love to 'paint' textures onto surfaces)
Like you do in Photoshop when importing 3d models? Is that what you mean by painting?
@olishea said:
- ability to open SketchUp at whatever reolution you like. So when it starts up you could just type 1024x768 for example. at the moment it opens at 1024 x739.
Gaieus use a nice utility for that - lets you size any application to a fixed size. Don't remember what it was called now.
@olishea said:
- multi-core support. How come it doesn't have this already?
Also not something that's a magic bullet or something one just switch to "on". Multi-core is difficult and in many cases not applicable. This is what John meant by when he'd like to see people ask for what they'd like to see as result - not the technical implementation itself. This request falls inline with #1 - better performance.
@olishea said:
- all plugins in one place.....a website that is. Like a list on the google wesbite that will link you to all the plugins available.
Would love to see a repository where one could upload plugins and be able to download from SU. And SU'd notify about updates. Like the package manager in Linux distributions.
-
@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.
-
@adamb said:
@thomthom said:
@adamb said:
Like Jeff Hammond, I struggle to understand what workflow using SU requires 2 GB of memory. I'd say your workflow needs looking at.
When you export really large 2d exports that memory usage easily run up to that point - nothing to do with the workflow. But that's about the only area where SU itself run into the memory issue. Mostly it's when using render engines that run inside SU's process.
I don't understand. 10000 pixel * 10000 pixel * RGBA is 400MBytes. You're doing images larger than this? Mad.
EDIT: OK perhaps not Mad. But surprising.
Memory use can be high with relight, displacement and so... not to forget full spectral engines.
-
@jbacus said:
@khai said:
I make Poser content as a base, but which it being OBJ can be loaded into any application that supports OBJ. eg Maya, Lightwave, Cinema4D, Max, Hexagon, Carrara, Vue, Softimage, Blender, Wings3D, .... the list goes on. of those apps only Softimage, Max.. I think Maya and Cinema read DAE. and even then it's not guaranteed as supported as OBJ. infact for UVmapping work the 2 major UVapps UVlayout and UVmapper only support OBJ!
but from your answers I'm not holding out much hope of getting the point across.
I think I get your point just fine. So what you want to do is make models in Poser that can be loaded into a SketchUp scene? According to this page (http://poser.smithmicro.com/poserpro.html) Poser Pro 2010 supports COLLADA import/export.
john
.edit oh forget it.
my question orginally was about the logic of the choice. now it's just lost.
I get it. you prefer Collada even tho it is a poorly supported format at this time.
-
@unknownuser said:
Like you do in Photoshop when importing 3d models? Is that what you mean by painting?
Yeah i think so, i havent used CS5 yet.. I was thinking more like zbrush esp for blending 2 textures
-
To the guy asking for sketchup -> luxrender... I'll continue work on it after finish my last high school exams (ever, yeah!)
-
thomthom i mean being able to paint seamless textures onto organic shapes, don't know the exact term for this.....where you can unfold the shape and apply UV map. It would be cool to have full control over textures. Not just "get what you're given"
-
@notareal said:
@adamb said:
@thomthom said:
@adamb said:
Like Jeff Hammond, I struggle to understand what workflow using SU requires 2 GB of memory. I'd say your workflow needs looking at.
When you export really large 2d exports that memory usage easily run up to that point - nothing to do with the workflow. But that's about the only area where SU itself run into the memory issue. Mostly it's when using render engines that run inside SU's process.
I don't understand. 10000 pixel * 10000 pixel * RGBA is 400MBytes. You're doing images larger than this? Mad.
EDIT: OK perhaps not Mad. But surprising.
Memory use can be high with relight, displacement and so... not to forget full spectral engines.
He was talking about SU's 2D export.
-
@thomthom said:
@notareal said:
@adamb said:
@thomthom said:
@adamb said:
Like Jeff Hammond, I struggle to understand what workflow using SU requires 2 GB of memory. I'd say your workflow needs looking at.
When you export really large 2d exports that memory usage easily run up to that point - nothing to do with the workflow. But that's about the only area where SU itself run into the memory issue. Mostly it's when using render engines that run inside SU's process.
I don't understand. 10000 pixel * 10000 pixel * RGBA is 400MBytes. You're doing images larger than this? Mad.
EDIT: OK perhaps not Mad. But surprising.
Memory use can be high with relight, displacement and so... not to forget full spectral engines.
He was talking about SU's 2D export.
Woops... miss read to 3D.
-
@unknownuser said:
yeah i think so, i havent used CS5 yet.. I was thinking more like zbrush esp for blending 2 textures
yeah thats what i meant by "paint". you could blend several seamless textures by using a "texture brush tool"
could change radius, opacity etc....but maybe this is wishing for too much. But this could be possible within SU.
-
@olishea said:
being able to paint seamless textures onto organic shapes
Does the Ruby API allow to set a color value to a pixel of a texture? Or to reload a texture image very fast? Would it be theoretically possible with Ruby + ImageMagick or would we need to wait for the SketchUp team?
Another thing that I would like (maybe easier as painting) is deforming UV coordinates on multiple/curved surfaces with a smooth tool. This would allow to project your texture with a simple spherical projection and if you don't like the result, you just drag and deform the texture until it fits.
-
@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? Would it be theoretically possible with Ruby + ImageMagick or would we need to wait for the SketchUp team?
No - no read or write to image data.
Reloading texture via the API is no faster than what you do in the UI.
@aerilius said:
Another thing that I would like (maybe easier as painting) is deforming UV coordinates on multiple/curved surfaces with a smooth tool. This would allow to project your texture with a simple spherical projection and if you don't like the result, you just drag and deform the texture until it fits.
I'm not fully able to envision what you describe. This "Smooth" tool?
Are you talking about a spherical mapping tool? (Where you stretch and squash the sphere?) -
Is there an app that already has such a feature? I'm curious of how it'd work.
-
Sorry, I meant something similar to smooth selection in vertex tools, that you can use to move/rotate/deform the texture coordinates.
-
@thomthom said:
Is there an app that already has such a feature? I'm curious of how it'd work.
Don't say that they have this, but I'd would first look on zbrush or sculptris.
Advertisement