What will SketchUp Free and Pro look like in 2013?
-
@jgb said:
While I don't disagree, and I am no lover of Autocad, SU has a long way to go before it can rival ACAD at a PROFESSIONAL level.
yep, as with every other prof. 2D CAD as e.g. AC or Medusa etc.
@jgb said:
Never touched ACAD again after that day, and purged it from my PC.
then you obviously do not need any prof. shop drawings.
@jgb said:
SU also has some ways to go to challenge SolidWorks in the solids and mechanical assembly capabilities.
some ways? hahaha, lightyears would describe better... especially because SWX is a NURBS based volume modeler by design.
@jgb said:
But SU has its very own niche regarding rapid model development, ease of learning/use and specialty plugins that neither ACAD nor SW can match.
simply because that is not the purpose or target of them, AC is mainly used for 2D construction drawings (yes, they are still required) and SWX mainly for 3D MCAD, at least by pros. making a living of them.
@jgb said:
As a result, it is IMHO a very high end hobbyist "semi" CAD tool and a low/medium end professional rapid CAD tool.
SU is no 'real' CAD but a 3D sketcher and probably/hopefully will stay for the foreseeable future, last but not least because of it's mesh based wireframe kernel.
The main competition of SU is something like Bonzai/Form-Z (Design) or Modo (CCAD) and maybe VectorWorks (AEC), surely not the HD CADs.
jm2cts,
Norbert -
@tim said:
Some of us have made some quite decent drawings with it.
which is the prerequisite of every commercial usage.
How complicated this is or how long it lasts to produce the drawings (aka productivity) compared with 'real' 2D CAD packages, that's the question.
jm2cts,
Norbert -
@dave r said:
@simon le bon said:
But I think that before the idea of driving people to pay, Trimble team should roll up their sleeves and work for free, and show us what they are capable of such feats they earn our respect. Then we can actually revisit.
simonlebon
So Simon, I wonder if you would be willing to do your job without pay. You ask that of the SketchUp team. You must be willing to do the same.
It seems logical and fair to argue that nobody should work for free, but what Simon is raising I believe is still valid. (I give benefit of the doubt to the not complete command of English)
The question is not whether one's willing to work without pay, but a matter of what really is and will be the mutual agreement.
Sketchup was provided for free with some limitations (not used for commercial work), in exchange the community created models (warehouse) and scripts mostly for free too. It also contributed to widen the use (to applications and uses the author may not have thought about) and spread the reputation and potential. It was a mutually beneficial agreement to enhance the user base, creativity and contribution to the core software. That was beneficial to the free version, but also to the pro version and that was understood and accepted by all parties.
People that developed for sale scripts also benefited from the installed based of users (free and pro) to sell their scripts. And I didn't see anyone (from Google) denouncing the unfairness of that situation.So the question really is whether that somewhat tacit agreement has been fundamentally unilaterally modified, or even worse as I suspect, is planned to be modified but without being forthcoming or clear about it so as not to lose the benefit gained from the counter party (free scripts and model, forums, user base) as long as the illusion that their tacit agreement has not been altered can be maintained.
For Trimble to make SU a full commercial software is fine. They own it, they can run the business model they want with it. But to do so while attempting to keep the goodwill generated based on the free version of it is quite different.
They're smart, I don't believe they will do so abruptly. So first there will be enhancement only to the pro version, free will remain (or being reduced). Then eventually free may not work and only paid stuff will be available and useful. Great strategy.
If Trimble is to argue that they cannot, or are not willing to do any work that is not followed by monetization of such, then so be it, but it could be clearly stated and then so it could be for all involved.
It will be up to each of us to decide whether we accept the new situation or agreement, but what could be expected is for it to be clear and not look like some kind of political discourse:- No worries we will not change anything and will continue even more to support the free version (translation: please stay on board and continue creating and contributing and improving)
- Well nobody works without pay (fallacy as that was never the case) so we expect to be paid for what we do (always was, just with a different model)
- New version and development is to be paid for, but you can still benefit from all the stuff we didn't pay for because we kept a "free" version.
The question has never been whether the SU team is willing to work for free, for as I firmly believe they always have been paid, I'm not aware that they are volunteers and they shouldn't be. It's just that the business model for the product included a free version to monetize the product in a different manner.
Trimble can change that, but fairness would then be to pay all developpers of free scripts and warehouse models something too for the acquired benefit. These people have indeed "worked for free" to create the value in what Trimble HAS now. Value in user base, potential clients, impact, existing IPs and so on. So indeed "nobody should work for free".The least they could do is clarify the situation so that everyone knows exactly what will happen from now on and what to expect if they volunteer their time to contribute to the software and its community: - Will they get a real benefit in return? (like free updates)
- Will they get an opportunity for being paid (through sales or otherwise) for their effort?
- Will they just contribute and only get charged in return (with new software for sale only)?
That would be nice, but I understand why it's not in Trimble's interest, and that is precisely what makes me (and I suspect others) cautious.
That would be nice, but it's neither in Trimble's interest nor duty to keep us, contributors, aware or guarantor of our own interest. Caveat emptor!
-
At the end of the day the answer to the question (what will SU 2013 look like?) will only be answered by Trimble.
It's their software and there is no doubt a change in environment and strategy from Google.
The Google business model was to have a free version thus creating a community, and monetizingg a different way (indirectly), understood.
The Trimble business model is ? We don't really know and they're not telling it seems.And that business model is what will condition what SU 2013 (and after) will be, and until we see acts (what they do) that will speak for themselves, we don't know if they will keep the old Google business model (doubtly), create a new one based only on monetizing everything (fair enough), or some hybrid.
In the end it's their prerogative regardless of how we feel about it.However, it's then up to us as a community, and as such individuals, to see if we belong into that model or not (if we derive an interest, whatever it is).
It would be easier to know in order to decide, alas we don't, so waiting and status quo is the order of the day.
One thing I'm pretty sure of (but it's my opinion and could be all wrong) is that it WILL change. Depending on each one's situation it could be for better or worse. Time will tell. -
Worrying about who gets compensated for what is a fools game -- and so is the free version (for Trimble).
The very best tactic Trimble could pursue is to make the pay versions (since there will be more than one) so much more compelling and useful that nobody would bother using the free version anymore.
Problem solved.
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
Worrying about who gets compensated for what is a fools game -- and so is the free version (for Trimble).
The very best tactic Trimble could pursue is to make the pay versions (since there will be more than one) so much more compelling and useful that nobody would bother using the free version anymore.
Problem solved.
Best,
Jason.I agree to a certain extent but having a free version at some level is also good for business. The trouble is, IMO, that Google appears to have given little or no thought to what should have been in the free version. Then again maybe they did but their ambition of getting an army of SketchUp users 3D modeling the world for GE was flawed! Most free down-loaders take and give nothing back not even a 'Thank You' let alone buy a cup of coffee for the provider, its sad but true. Just ask our army of Ruby guys!
Now if Google sat down and had a good think about it, they might have said, 'Hold on, we are giving away an application worth nearly $500 in the hope that the down-loaders will do a few GE models for us!' They then might have said, 'Overly optimistic, that will never happen!'
After some thought they might have then only given away a nearly Pro free version to folks that actually did some free modeling for them, even kids that uploaded 'my house' to 3DWH
The initially given away free 'testing' version might have been a very basic version of SU not a Pro version with a couple of features taken out. Who would have complained? No one I imagine! Who did complain? The existing Pro users as it devalued an application they paid good money for and intened to build business on. What happened? These Pro users lost out and to make it worse we see lots of ' Ah, that's only a free app you are using for the work you are doing!'
Its going to be difficult for Trimble SketchUp to come up with a solution that suits all but the bottom line IMO is that the new company will have to 'pay its way' ....... advertising and populating GE now looks to be out of the equation!
-
Don't you just love it when people respond to a post without really reading it and....
understanding what was stated????
I said I only use the FREE SU version because it is now a hobby for me, and
the PRO version is not worth the $$ TO ME for the extra features, as desirable as they may be.That means, I can't use LAYOUT to any useful extent.
That also means I don't need to create shop drawings either. I'm not actually building anything.
Well actually that's not quite true. I did do a fairly accurate model of my laundry area to find the best fit for the new washer & dryer, as well as getting rid of the dumb layout the former house owner built.
The SU model showed me a 1 1/4 inch interference with an electrical box jutting out of the furnace. I was then able to move the box BEFORE the units were delivered. No amount of tape measurements onto paper would have clued me to that, until I would have tried to fit them in.Similarly, I modeled my bathroom reno. There I could have used real shop drawings for the new cabinetry, but a few JPG exports with some critical dimensions was enough for the cabinet maker to make cabinets with only 1/2 inch of installation clearance instead of the usual 1 1/2 to 2 inches.
I used to need to make shop drawings about 20+ years ago, and I used ACAD for that. But a small part of my job was conceptual design, and ACAD could not hack it, hence a stack of paper SKETCHES.
When I retired, before the advent of SU, ACAD drove me nuts trying to draw concepts in 3D (2 1/2 D as they termed it). And yes, I tried others as well. An example I use is one where after over 2 solid weeks of trying to conceptualize a complex airplane fuselage in ACAD, I discovered SU and within 2 hours of downloading it, my concept design was done. I've spent the last several years putting a lot of my old paper concepts into SU. New ones too. I use SU for my patent submissions as well, after educating my patent lawyer to use them instead of employing a draftsman. Now he can get and include drawings of complex ideas at any view angle in no time at all.
SU is NOT a CAD. I know that, and I do know the difference, but I do use it as one. Of course there are better tools out there, ACAD, SolidWorx and others that cost plenty. They are NOT hobbyist tools. They are PRO tools.
If I had the $$$$ I would buy a CATIA seat and server.
There are things I can do in SU far faster and easier than with any other s/w.
There are things any other s/w can do better than SU as well.
Ya pays your money and you takes your choice. -
@jgb said:
SU is NOT a CAD. I know that, and I do know the difference, but I do use it as one. Of course there are better tools out there, ACAD, SolidWorx and others that cost plenty.
these are no better or less better tools but tools for other purposes as elaborated above and regardless of the cost.
You should'nt mix them all up in the CAD 'pot' but differentiate between 2D and 3D modeling as well as meshbased wireframe modeling vs. NURBS based surface and volume modeling... which all have their advantages in different areas.
Trying to use AC for 3D modeling just because it is a 'CAD' will not work because it violates the 'using the right tool for the right job' rule... which btw. would be Inventor or Revit etc. if desired from AD.
If ever the need for shop drawings arises and you don't wanna shell out any money for e.g. LO, have a look at the free DraftSight form Dassault (OEM Gräbert CAD).
happy X-mas,
Norbert -
@mike lucey said:
I agree to a certain extent but having a free version at some level is also good for business. The trouble is, IMO, that Google appears to have given little or no thought to what should have been in the free version.................................a solution that suits all but the bottom line IMO is that the new company will have to 'pay its way' ....... advertising and populating GE now looks to be out of the equation!
I like how you think. Indeed a free version also creates a low intrinsic value of a product. that is absolutely correct, hence tons of people not even saying thank you.
So indeed a free version with contingencies attached would be great. Download this and it's free as long as:
- NO commercial use and
- you develop one original script or
- You create 2 buildings (google case)or
- etc...
within one year otherwise the price is $xx
If you don't want to have contingency or need it for commercial use ,then the price is such.
Yes Google should have done that. It creates a form of return on investment for the creator, and it doesn't diminish the intrinsic value, yet it keeps it widely available.
Let's hope.
-
IMO free software isn't going to be part of the future... but you can download and use that last free version of SU (held in aspic, so to speak) for as long as you have Win Xp/Vista/7 PC's.
I expect Trimble's whole development effort will go to integrate SU Pro with existing Trimble tools for the purpose of providing whatever competitive advantage that can bring, including (but not limited to) software products that run on OS's released AFTER Win 7, day 1.
SU Free will be there too, stuck in the past like a bug in amber.
-
I would agree that SU needs to change. We are having same old same old now for years without any real improvement. Do not misunderstand me I love SU , I still use SU pro and teach it but I became disillusioned with its speed and quality of development and point blank refusal to make 64 bit version and rewrite the core to bring SU to the next level. The core engine is now clunky , slow and not capable to hold large data. ( I can visualise ton of bricks coming my way
) So after long deliberation I decided to move to Rhino. I did it 2 years ago and now I use Rhino for any serious modelling. Just think of T-Splines. Clayoo , Grasshopper, VisualArq ...few out of many plugins for Rhino.
Future of Su....who knows. I suppose Trimble will be thinking how to make money out of it fast , and it might take them sometime before they make any serious change. So for me I will use SU but I do not hold my breath. -
The previous post is an example of exactly what concerns me most -- advanced users of SketchUp are migrating away from the package because the "top-end" of SketchUp is nowhere near what other professional modeling packages can offer.
This loss of top-end modeling talent (and accompanying passion) helps to solidify the concept that SketchUp is a hobbyist-only package (despite the mislabled "Pro").
A hobbyist package is not going to be very effective for Trimble, which is a professional oriented company... so I can't see the status quo going on for much longer before SketchUp ceases to be commercially viable as a stand-alone package.
Best,
Jason. -
Yes indeed, it should be worrisome for Trimble SketchUp that some professional users are looking elsewhere.
Along with the need for a possible 64bit version and all the goodies that might entail I would also like to see the approach on the GUI looked at with a view to having other input options For example, http://leonar3do.com/en/
Even Prince Charles took a shine to this method of modelling input!
-
@sepo said:
So after long deliberation I decided to move to Rhino. I did it 2 years ago and now I use Rhino for any serious modelling. Just think of T-Splines. Clayoo , Grasshopper, VisualArq ...few out of many plugins for Rhino.
wireframe modelers as e.g. SU or Form-Z and NURB surface modelers as e.g. Rhino or ViaCAD are targeting different areas of (still professional) modeling, therefore creating a competition which simply does not exist resp. only for a small intersection is pretty senseless... the ol' 'choosing the right tool for the right job' stuff, ya' know.
jm2cts,
Norbert -
@jason_maranto said:
...because the "top-end" of SketchUp is nowhere near what other professional modeling packages can offer.
a correct statement would be:
@unknownuser said:
...is nowhere near what other mid-range/high-end modeling packages can offer.
the type of usage has not very much to do with this, otherwise only modelers as e.g. Catia/Creo/NX (CAD/PLM) or Allplan/ArchiCAD (AEC/BIM) etc. would count to the 'professional' tools... which is obviously disproved by the many commercial users of SU.
if you need more modeling power or AEC/BIM functionality at least yet, simply use the right = another tool, it could be that easy.
jm2cts,
Norbert -
OK, you tell me what exactly SketchUp does better than any other package? Siphoning off of the user-base (via plugin development) is not not something I would give any props to the Sketchup dev team for... if anything they should be ashamed that the (largely unpaid) plugin developers have put them to shame, and this "Pro" modeling software is a joke without the contributions of the user base to prop it up.
My feeling is if I move on from SketchUp as my main modeling package there is nothing outstanding SketchUp brings to the table to bring me back (thus making paying upgrade fees pointless). From my perspective Sketchup doesn't do anything better, and does quite a bit considerably worse -- its most outstanding property is it is free (which is not true in the case of "pro" users).
Enough people take that attitude and the software is dead.
All I ask is that they earn my money... which is only fair.
Best,
Jason. -
@sketch3d.de said:
wireframe modelers as e.g. SU or Form-Z and NURB surface modelers as e.g. Rhino or ViaCAD are targeting different areas of (still professional) modeling, therefore creating a competition which simply does not exist resp. only for a small intersection is pretty senseless... the ol' 'choosing the right tool for the right job' stuff, ya' know.
jm2cts,
NorbertI am not quite sure what exactly did you mean here.
Of course there is no one software for all jobs but if you look at Rhino you will see it covers product/ Industrial Design, Architecture and anything in between. If you look at the work of Zaha Hadid it is mostly done in Rhino with Grasshopper for form finding. VisualArq plugin gives you ability to model architecture intelligently and has automatic output in form of plans elevations and sections. It updates 2d sections and elevations automatically with any change you make. It has intelligent walls and slabs etc. Rhino 5 also has now descent native renderer but for me more importantly it has direct export to Thea. We are now waiting for further plugin integration with Thea. Not to mention that I can use my Rhino files directly in Solidworks and for me more essentially in Vectorworks.
BTW Form-Z is also NURBS (with S )modeler. -
@jason_maranto said:
OK, you tell me what exactly SketchUp does better than any other package?
Ease of use, usability, intuitive UI and ergonomy. I model a loooot quicker in sketchup than any other modeling software. I also like its precision, and the WYSIWYG system.
-
Compared to what? Most of the modelers I've used currently have as good if not better usability/speed than SketchUp, and the UI are leagues better.
If you want to see an example of what a better UI should/could look like for SketchUp, look at Layout (probably the best thing about Pro) -- Sketchup is in dire need of a UI update, even by the standard of itself.
Sure, If you are just modeling simple stuff, SketchUp gets you started quickly, but as the model becomes more complex things slow down greatly... and if you want to do anything truly advanced, good luck, without resorting to a 3rd party plugin (or, more commonly, a small army of them).
I'm not sure if we are talking apples and oranges here -- I don't give a hoot about drafting packages... I'm talking normal 3D modeling packages. SketchUp is billed as a 3D modeling package (not a drafting package) so that is what I'm comparing it to. It seems alot of others are laboring under the misconception that it is somehow meant to be a drafting application -- which cannot possibly be true without curves/arcs/circles.
SketchUp had great potential in version 6 -- which was slightly refined in version 7... but version 8 was a joke. There's a reason why many Pro version users still have not upgraded -- SketchUp needs to earn their money. IMO that hasn't happened in a long while...
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
Compared to what? Most of the modelers I've used currently have as good if not better usability/speed than SketchUp, and the UI are leagues better.
Well, in the past few years I tried 3Ds Max, Maya, Cinema 4D, Rhino, Modo, Blender. As I do only architecture, I also compare SU to BIM softwares like Revit and ArchiCAD. Frankly, I never managed to get the same modeling speed as SU in any of these software. The interaction engine, the groups/components fonctionality, etc...
As for the UI, I'm not only talking about the graphic interface, which could be improved, yeah. But about how the user interacts with the geometry.Sure, SU out-of-the-box is far beyond most of the others in terms of power. But for me, it has its speed.
As always, it comes down to "use the right tool for the right job".
For years I used C4D, for modeling characters and props for video games' mods. I found it really intuitive and powerful. Then, I began my architecture studies. And suddenly, for 3D sketching, C4D became heavy and slow. Discovering SU was a slap in the face.
I still often have to use 3Dsmax for rendering purpose, as SU doesn't handle heavy vegetation. And when I do, my only wish is that I could model in it as I do in SU.So yeah, if you need modeling power, move on to something else. I need a good and fast architectural 3D sketching software, and for that I found nothing better than sketchup.
Advertisement