SketchUp needs this ! (is at version 8 now, for God's sake)

Aerilius

... but nobody centralized them
Or they have already grown out of the previous pool(s)
Nevertheless thanks for posting this.
(I barely encounter any crashes, but they seem to occur to many and this is indeed a high priority either to fix it in SU, or to secure SU so that driver issues can't crash it.)

thomthom

Mostly the crashes I have is with the Drape tool. A lot.
And I find that render engines usually makes SU instalbe due to their uses of observers - especially if you have multiple loaded.

derei

@thomthom said:

Mostly the crashes I have is with the Drape tool. A lot.
And I find that render engines usually makes SU instalbe due to their uses of observers - especially if you have multiple loaded.

So, from a plugin-maker point of view, the Observers fix is a must, staying on the same page, for PRO versions (I would expect the PRO features to be smooth, as some pay for them), there is DC editor...that's slow. It's really difficult to work with it...it seem that always it's "thinking", also, a complex-geometry component with 2-3 levels of nested coponents animate jerky (almost no animation at all).

Charlie__V

@unknownuser said:

Save faster !
One smart guy (from Trimble, I think) recommended here on a post about SUx64 that we get faster hard-drives if we want faster save.
Tell me, how SLOW do you think my HDD is, if a freakin' 57MB model needs 2-3 minutes to save ?? I have a hint: is SATA II, not 5" Floppy Disk:thumb:

Dereeei All
I have offered...in the past... what I think is a reasonable explanation for the "long save" on...~ "large models".

In short.......it is the creation of a thumbnail image that is (largely) a cause of the "long save".

Once the "create thumbnail on save" is disabled you will most certainly experience a marked improvement in "save time".

Since I have never received any feedback on this phenom.......please enlighten if you experience any different experience.

all the best,
Charlie
Edit:
&..FWIW Sure...the thumbnails are useful/great........but W/O..... the save time is 10x faster.....minimum (in my experience)

mitcorb

And I would ask--because I don't know--why would saving a thumbnail be so complex that it takes that much time?

Gaieus

@numerobis said:

So... where can i disable the thumbnails?!? i can't find any option for this.

In the scene manager: uncheck the "Use thumbnails..."

numerobis

@unknownuser said:

Once the "create thumbnail on save" is disabled you will most certainly experience a marked improvement in "save time".

So... where can i disable the thumbnails?!? i can't find any option for this.

btw.nice speed improvement...

numerobis

ahh, ok... i thought there is a special second option for thumbnails for the file icon...
but thanks, i will try this.

RADRaze2KX

@unknownuser said:

Save faster !
One smart guy (from Trimble, I think) recommended here on a post about SUx64 that we get faster hard-drives if we want faster save.
Tell me, how SLOW do you think my HDD is, if a freakin' 57MB model needs 2-3 minutes to save ?? I have a hint: is SATA II, not 5" Floppy

The speed of which your model is saving leads me to believe your hard drive is running slow. You also mentioned you had a Core2Duo, which is (depending on which architecture) is up to six generations behind. Hard drives are not meant to last that long; they work like vinyl records - you have a read/write head that goes back and forth and reads the data from a spinning metal platter, but instead of reading grooves that wear out, it's readinng magnetism. Over time, that read/write head, just like the needle on a turntable, will wear out. When this happens, its ability to read/write data to the drive is diminished, sometimes to the point of it being unusable. The fact that your model is small means nothing if the speed of your harddrive has dropped to a crawl.

How many Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfathers do YOU know that have memories so fast they can tell you anything you want to know?

Chances are, there aren't many. And the same concept is true of a harddrive that's gone through 5 generations of processor changes. If you're still running the original drive, consider a replacement. Since you're running SATA II, get a solid state drive - a 120GB Kingston HyperX 3K SSD costs around $100, labor rates will very. Use the SSD for your active sketches, and store them long-term on the old drive.

derei

@radraze2kx said:

The speed of which your model is saving leads me to believe your hard drive is running slow. You also mentioned you had a Core2Duo, which is (depending on which architecture) is up to six generations behind. Hard drives are not meant to last that long; [...]

Your argument is invalid. Why? well... in the first place, I can agree with you that a HDD is not meant to run forever. But it won't diminish its read/write properties in a matter of few years. That's a fact. Actually, it happens that I have hard-drives 20 years old... and are working perfectly (unfortunately can't be used to anything of value, but still... as proof of fact)
Also, Core2Duo works fine with ALL other software (including AutoCAD, 3DMax, you name it)... so, surprisingly, only SU is too powerful for it ?
I don't want to offend you, but coming with such arguments denote that you don't really know much about computer hardware... Yes, a SSD has more speed, indeed, but I am talking abut speeds that are NOT limited by hardware (50MB / 2minutes). Tell me, HOW BAD a hdd should work, to save so slow? I'm giving the answer in your place: HORRIBLY BAD !. And is not the case... FYI: i run scheduled sector checks and once in a while speed tests, and from the results I'm telling you it's working fine.
Yes, my CPU is somehow slow... but it still runs @3.4 GHz... and since SU is a single-core application, i think is pretty good, don't you think? (6 generations of CPUs don't reflect in 6x single-core more computational speed )

My point was this: SU is NOT EFFICIENT in handling save operations, or other incremental operations. And that's due faulty core design. Design that SHOULD be improved. SU was initially designed for simple geometry, so nobody even imagined that it will be used to make organic shapes or such complex models like we do now. And its original design was good enough for its intended purpose.
"Unfortunately", now we use SU for far more and wonderful things than making Google Earth buildings... and it needs to step-up, to become more efficient.
I find it illogical to put my money in THE BEST PC that exists, only to run a free software... while other developers are able to make similar software that run on average computers...

brodie

I don't necessarily agree with the tone, but I agree with all the sentiments. The issues you're having can be exacerbated by a slow or old computer but the issues you're bringing up are inherent to SU no matter what PC you have to a great or lesser degree.

File save times can be slow and to make matters worse file sizes are often larger than they "should" be which compounds the issue. By comparison, 3ds Max can save large amounts of geometry pretty quickly with small file sizes (there's even a "compress on save" option that can reduce file sizes by 75%). There are, of course, ways to quickly bloat your file, but even if you utilize good SU file management, the issue is still far from ideal.

I won't go into detail reiterating all of your other points but suffice it to say I fully agree that at this stage better UV mapping, unbroken material management (The inability to save/delete a material in a moderately sized scene, I think, constitutes as broken), etc.

-Brodie