Advance Camera Tools now available via Google for Free
-
At last... out of beta testing...
-
It says "for SU 8 pro", does anybody know if it works also with SU 7.1 pro?
-
The sketchup guys are on fire
First the shadow bug, now camera tools. I'm really liking this new updates and the speed their coming.
Keep them up guysCan i have faith in uv maping tools in next update/plugin release by you guys
? -
But why is it a rbs file?
There would be lots of good stuff that could benefit other ruby scripters in it I guess. -
@massimo said:
It says "for SU 8 pro", does anybody know if it works also with SU 7.1 pro?
It works with precisely the version it states: Google SketchUp Pro 8. This goes for both Mac and Windows, where the installer enforces those rules as well.
I'm not sure why the eye-rolling would be necessary, but in my mind, there are several reasons why this limitation is legitimate.
- The plugin was written to conform to the Ruby API of SketchUp 8, not 7.x.
- SketchUp 8 is the currently supported product. Although we reserve the right to release critical security fixes for 7.x if we deem it appropriate, we do not intend to perform "new" development for old products.
- The plugin only works with the Pro product, not the Free one, because these tools are aimed at film and stage professionals, not everyday modelers. I personally believe that the argument to use SketchUp for film and stage work is greatly strengthened by access to LayOut, which only comes with the Pro product. I think it's in everyone's best interest if we ensure that folks who use SketchUp for film and stage work have access to the full suite of professional tools offered by Google SketchUp Pro.
I hope this answers your question.
-
Thanks for answers Andrew.
@unknownuser said:
The plugin only works with the Pro product, not the Free one, because these tools are aimed at film and stage professionals, not everyday modelers.
As I said and as you can see on my profile, I have a pro version.
@unknownuser said:
I'm not sure why the eye-rolling would be necessary, but in my mind, there are several reasons why this limitation is legitimate.
No reason to be resentful. The eye-rolling was just self ironic, something like:
"be patient with me I'm still on 7 version". Hope this clarifies. -
Good addition
but why there's no 2d export in accordance to camera frame proportions?
2. Why camera copying wouldn't automatically create new scene?
3. Camera target gizmo would be nice too.
4. I wish the cameras would be by default unvisible on 2d export (while staying visible on the screen) -
As far as I can see there is nothing in the film/stage plugin's code to limit its use to just v8-Pro as suggested [e.g. there are no Sketchup.is_pro? tests or API methods reserved for Pro versions]. The advanced tool is compiled so I don't know...
However, the installers itself might only work for a v8-Pro installation [with both a version and a license check?]...
It might simply need an empty 'Sketchup8 Pro' entry in the Registry for it to run...
So you could probably copy all of the plugin's files/folders from a Pro installation into the same locations in a Free version installation and it might well work... but then you might have invalidated the user agreement
I'm unclear about why it's felt necessary to limit its use this way - it could have had a is_pro? test in a compiled .rbs version and then there wouldn't be this mystery... -
Thanks for the useful explanation TIG.
-
@massimo said:
As I said and as you can see on my profile, I have a pro version.
I was aware that you have a Pro version. Although my answer was addressed to you because you asked the original question, the purpose of mentioning Free vs. Pro was to provide as complete an answer as possible, preemptively answering the inevitable question of "Why doesn't it work with SketchUp 8 (free)?" for other forum users.
@massimo said:
"be patient with me I'm still on 7 version".
$95 gets you an upgrade from 7 to 8. Just sayin'...
-
@pixero said:
But why is it a rbs file?
The business model for this functionality is that it should only be available as part of the Pro product. That would be rather difficult to enforce if the tools were distributed unscrambled. Besides, if you bought a license for Pro so you could have access to the ACT and then learned that people were freely copying the plugin for use in the free product, you would probably feel a bit cheated. Therefore, this is in part, in defense of the rights of our Pro users.
Andrew
-
TIG,
I'm struggling to understand your message, but I think you may be muddying the waters a bit. I'd like to take a minute to clarify some things for everyone.
@tig said:
As far as I can see there is nothing in the film/stage plugin's code to limit its use to just v8-Pro as suggested
You seem to be talking about the original "Film and Stage" plugin. The old plugin was written in 2005, before Google inherited SketchUp through the acquisition of @Last Software. Back then, there was no "is_pro" method in the API because there was no free product. Back then, everyone had to pay to get a license to use SketchUp, so it wasn't necessary to make a distinction. That's why that plugin doesn't contain such a limitation. If you read the blog post associated with the launch of the Advanced Camera Tools, you will see that the tools have been completely re-written, debugged, and enhanced. Although the ACT are related to that old plugin, it is misleading to suggest that these tools are simply a re-packaged version of it, or that you can know for sure what API methods are in use within the code.
@tig said:
The advanced tool is compiled so I don't know... However, the installers itself might only work for a v8-Pro installation [with both a version and a license check?]...
As I indicated in a previous post, the "Advanced Camera Tools" are written specifically for Google SketchUp Pro 8. Yes, the installers themselves, both on Mac and Windows, contain checks to prevent installation outside of GSU Pro 8. In addition, the plugin itself is also written to enforce the policy of only running with the Pro product.
@tig said:
I'm unclear about why it's felt necessary to limit its use this way - it could have had a is_pro? test in a compiled .rbs version and then there wouldn't be this mystery...
This is the sentence I'm having the hardest time understanding, because I do not see that there is any mystery. Just to clarify, the Advanced Camera Tools are designed to only operate with the Pro product. Yes, part of this involves using an "is_pro" check, among other things. As for why Google felt it appropriate to limit the use of the ACT to the Pro product, see my previous postings.
@tig said:
It might simply need an empty 'Sketchup8 Pro' entry in the Registry for it to run... So you could probably copy all of the plugin's files/folders from a Pro installation into the same locations in a Free version installation and it might well work... but then you might have invalidated the user agreement
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not writing the following in an official capacity as a Google employee, so you may take it with a grain of salt. I'm also not trying to chastise or criticize. I'm only trying to provide some clarification. However, in my reading of the Google SketchUp EULA, going to any lengths to attempt to make the Advanced Camera Tools operate in an environment other than that for which they were intended, would violate the user agreement. I also don't think it's a good idea to encourage anyone to subvert the protections that are in place to prevent unauthorized use of the software.
Some noteworthy excerpts from the EULA are as follows:
@unknownuser said:
Google SketchUp Pro consists of functionality available in Google SketchUp (free version) as well as functionality available only in Google SketchUp Pro. The Google SketchUp Pro functionality is made available to you without charge on a trial basis for a limited time, as may be determined by Google from time to time in its sole discretion. To continue using the Pro functionality after the expiration of the trial period, you must pay the applicable license fee at http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/redirects/gsu8/buy.html, or other URL that Google may provide from time to time.
The Advanced Camera Tools constitute functionality only available in Google SketchUp Pro. Therefore, in my reading of those terms, one can only use those tools within the context of the trial period, or upon its expiration, after having paid to purchase a Pro license.
@unknownuser said:
You agree that you will not, and will not allow any third party to... (ii) take any action to circumvent or defeat the security or content usage rules provided, deployed or enforced by any functionality...contained in the Software
I should think that coaxing the ACT plugin to run under a pre-8 version of SketchUp, or in the free version, would constitute attempts to circumvent the security functionality of the software.
@unknownuser said:
You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software
Finally, if someone were to attempt to unscramble the .rbs file to obtain access to the code it contains, these terms would be violated as well.
Again, I haven't written this message in an official capacity as a Google employee. I'm just pointing out how I would interpret the EULA.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you and for anyone else who was confused about the matter.
Andrew
-
Is there a ruby API for plugins to access the camera information?
-
AndrewS
I can wholeheartedly agree with most of your comments...
However, I still fail to see why this current Plugin ended up being 'Pro only'.
The previous 'version' of the very similar tool [yes, I know it's not 'the same' tool !] was never limited in this way...There are many 'ordinary' people [this I must only presume, as there are, as you know and I might guess, NDAs - non-disclosure agreements - for such helpers], who have undoubtedly assisted Google in the testing of this tool and may now find themselves [or there friends] unable to use it [if they are not Pro users] without any prior warning that this might be the case when it was finally released...
I do/did not 'encourage' anyone to break the terms of any agreements with anyone, let alone the all powerful 'Google' - indeed, I suggested that any attempts to do so might well be regarded as being 'wrong'...
My comment about an 'empty registry entry' [and that wasn't "recommended", as I clearly said that it could be "wrong"] were 'off the cuff' and completely untested in practice... BUT if that simple ploy compromises your tool then may I suggest that a more robust method should have been considered to protect Google's intellectual property in the first place ! Did they not think of that simple ploy to circumvent checking ? I hope they did ! You could have asked many users, like myself who might have had some advice...
Also do you really suppose [as you have 'hinted'] that if I were able to 'crack' Google's encrypted rbs files I would publicize that fact... please reread my post to see that I do not say this at all [I am not stupid to make such statements publicly OR in private!].
Also I did not comment of the API methods used in the 'current package' - only those in the 'original' one...
You may be speaking here 'in your private capacity', but you are clearly a 'company man'. You might well not be 'a lawyer' [pray to God!]... but any interpretation of my comments as 'incitement to commit illegal or even 'inappropriate acts' would be robustly defended by me; indeed they could perhaps be considered as libelous considered in the right light...
Disappointedly, yours...
-
@chris_at_twilight said:
Is there a ruby API for plugins to access the camera information?
Pleas read the API docs [although be warned Google can't be bothered to have someone appointed to correct or update these on a regular basis - although they can always have their 'thought-police' lurking around...]
http://code.google.com/apis/sketchup/docs/ourdoc/camera.html
http://code.google.com/apis/sketchup/docs/ourdoc/view.html#camera
etc -
@TIG: That assumes that the cameras in ACT use only the existing ruby classes. Is that the case, or did they create new classes with extended functionality?
(I'm very familiar with the API docs
) -
@chris_at_twilight said:
@TIG: That assumes that the cameras in ACT use only the existing ruby classes. Is that the case, or did they create new classes with extended functionality?
(I'm very familiar with the API docs )I never said that it only used the current classes - I was comparing/contrasting it with the original version - re-read the post to see that...
Considering the 'Google thought police' are now out and about, I must say 'NO' to your query...
As far as I know, there are no new methods added by this tool [new methods from Google that might prove useful to the wider community might be too much to ask for ] - a simple '.methods' check will confirm this... -
TIG,
I apologize if my previous message was not clear enough on this point, but I never intended to criticize or chastise you or anyone else, nor did I ever use the word you in any of my statements where Google's terms were quoted. I am very careful about the words I choose and I meant them exactly the way they were written. Although my post addressed quotations from your message, the heart of the content was meant as a general notice to clarify the issues for everyone (as I explicitly stated). Please understand that there is no hidden agenda or meaning intended beyond just trying to help make sure everyone understands the issues. Doesn't it seem appropriate to you that I should respond to these sorts of comments immediately upon their first mention instead of waiting until potentially several people started trying or discussing the use of subversive techniques to do so? I think that's the point at which it does the most good, anyway.
@tig said:
I still fail to see why this current Plugin ended up being 'Pro only'.
As I mentioned in my first post to this thread:
@andrews said:
The plugin only works with the Pro product, not the Free one, because these tools are aimed at film and stage professionals, not everyday modelers. I personally believe that the argument to use SketchUp for film and stage work is greatly strengthened by access to LayOut, which only comes with the Pro product. I think it's in everyone's best interest if we ensure that folks who use SketchUp for film and stage work have access to the full suite of professional tools offered by Google SketchUp Pro.
Although I was an outspoken advocate for making this a Pro-only feature, it wasn't my decision that made it so. Whether anyone agrees with the decision or not, I can assure you that it was carefully considered by all of the right parties on the SketchUp team before the decision was made.
@tig said:
The previous 'version' of the very similar tool was never limited in this way...
I realize the previous version of the tool was not encrypted, making it more available for people to use on several platforms. However, I contend that the old "Film and Stage" plugin was "Pro only", as it was written in 2005 before there was a free product at all and was never repackaged for use in SU6 or SU7. This is the first opportunity we had since creating the free version of SketchUp to explicitly decide whether these tools should run on Pro, Free, or both.
@tig said:
There are many 'ordinary' people who have undoubtedly assisted Google in the testing of this tool and may now find themselves unable to use it [if they are not Pro users] without any prior warning that this might be the case when it was finally released...
I recognize that over the past few years, many folks have found workarounds to get the old F&S plugin installed and working with free versions of SU6 and SU7 and that some of those people probably provided feedback to us that was useful in the creation of the ACT. It is unfortunate that these users will not have access to the ACT plugin in the free product, but that's just the way it is. I am sorry that no warning was given, but I honestly don't see why one should have been expected.
@tig said:
I do/did not 'encourage' anyone to break the terms of any agreements
Agreed--I never said that you did. Again, my comments were meant to be read and understood by anyone who comes across these forums.
@tig said:
I suggested that any attempts to do so might well be regarded as being 'wrong'...
Agreed. You said:
@tig said:
but then you might have invalidated the user agreement
...which is precisely why I followed up by citing specific sections in the EULA that describe exactly why your assessment seems correct. If it hadn't been for you mentioning the user agreement, I probably wouldn't have thought to go into the details at all.
@tig said:
My comment about an 'empty registry entry' ... wasn't "recommended"
As I've already stated, I never claimed that you made any recommendations.
@tig said:
if that simple ploy compromises your tool then may I suggest that a more robust method should have been considered...Did they not think of that simple ploy to circumvent checking ? I hope they did ! You could have asked many users, like myself who might have had some advice...
I never addressed anything regarding the level of difficulty required to circumvent the security that is in place. We certainly have thought of many ways that a person might attempt to compromise the product and we employ a number of different strategies to defend against such attempts. We know our security isn't perfect, but that's not the point. The point is that I simply explained for the benefit of everyone, that it's probably not a good idea to subvert, or encourage anyone else to subvert, the protections that are in place, because to do so would be a violation of the EULA.
@tig said:
Also do you really suppose [as you have 'hinted'] that if I were able to 'crack' Google's encrypted rbs files I would publicize that fact ... please reread my post to see that I do not say this at all
Again (feeling like a broken record), there's no subtext in my original message; I never hinted you would attempt to crack an rbs file. I believe you're taking all of this way too personally. I don't need to re-read your post because I read it carefully in the first place (as I wish you had done with mine). I think if you were to take a step back and consider the intent of my post from an outside perspective, you would find that it really is as simple, straightforward, and un-targeted as I claim it to be.
Thanks for your understanding,
Andrew
-
AndrewS
"Have a nice day."
Intended in the most insincere form of that vapid American phrase...
Considering most Americans' lack of the understanding of 'irony' you have managed to wrap up an impolite personal insult in your anodyne niceties, intentionally or not...
My 'comments' weren't initially aimed at you personally, but at Google generally.
Somehow you have construed them to be aimed at you personally, I don't care one jot about you ! [sorry - but it's a fact]
My points all stand, without retraction.
Here I stand, I can do no other.
-
TIG, lets take it back down a notch, goodness. And I didn't appreciate your off-base anti-American stereotyping.
Advertisement