SketchUp 2013 ;)
-
@rich o brien said:
An incredible amount of work went into this and it's a great tool for community members.
( about PluginStore )
And much more now for the people who have not upgraded to 2.013 version .
Indeed it isSo please keep it up
Cheers
-
I'm not suggesting any kind of sneaky insider knowledge, Rich...just the SketchUp dev team and a 3rd party working on similar ideas simultaneously. Apologies if it is taken any other way. Need I mention the 3D Warehouse opening shortly after FormFonts? I'm quite well aware that months (if not years) of development work go into such things...so a difference of a few days in a public release is neither here nor there.
-
The SCF Plugin Store and the Extension Warehouse both have their strengths and weaknesses. Favour and competition don't enter into it.
The EW will reach a much greater userbase of SU users than SCF can hope to reach (ie. every single person that uses SU2013 Pro or Make)
On the other hand, despite its ability to give developers a great shop window to display their wares...complete with extensive Description, links to websites and blogs, Comment section etc. it does not offer the intensive back and forth dialogue between developers and users that is possible here on SCF...the ability to beta or fine-tune a plugin to perfection.
The two facilities complement each other; they are not in competition. In fact, if anything, via its links, I suspect the Extension warehouse may well drive more users to SCF than ever before. -
My biggest problem with Sketchup is the materials palette under OSX. Its a major slowdown. I have been hoping for years that this palette would get a makeover.
Imagine hovering your mouse over colored blocks, waiting to see what the materials names are to figure out what is what. Or the extremely slow behaviors of this palette even with a few materials added. Or importing a few warehouse models completely rendering the palette useless with a horrendous overflow in the amount of materials and no way to organize them. Dozens of greys and white making it impossible to see what is what. Or the fact that its not possible to see what material is active because the slightly blue frame around the material does not show or is very hard to detect. Or having to delete dozens of materials one by one in a painstakingly slow manor.
Bluntly ignoring a major flaw like the material palette (under OSX) does not add to a warm welcome for a new release. Haven't checked the new release yet so maybe I am all wrong....
I am aware of plugins working with materials that partly make up for the lack of proper material management in Sketchup. But this is definitely something that should properly work in Sketchup itself.But I like the look of the new website with the extension warehouse. Seems to browse fast and quick to find things there. Also the website looks well taken care off and fits Sketchup very well.
Francois -
If I had to make a wish list for Sketchup it would be.
- Able to handle 10x more geometry without dying
That's it. Does the new version offer potential for larger more complex models?
-
@krisidious said:
@jpalm32 said:
@notareal said:
@bbrown said:
Sounds like "Zoom In More" is the thing for me... cannot remember how often I have been frustrated with the broken zoom. But if trimble will now release a new version yearly (as paid upgrade), maybe I'll wait the next one that actually offers more than some bug fixes. Sure, LayOut did get a proper update (or so it sounds), but I never use it... and with sketchucation plugin store, I hardly find Extension Warehouse interesting.
Not much here for free users, user that don't use layout or improvements. IMO
Think this is a new platform to start separating free & pro.I think the new toolbar system and the overall program development in the background of the software are all you get with Make and you can't use it for Professional use, a huge mistake in my opinion.
Ironically it was the free and open source Ruby programming language that helped increase Sketchup's usefulness and popularity. Imagine if you will if Yukihiro Matsumoto had decided to allow people to use his Ruby programming language with a footnote of "not for commercial use." Where would Sketchup be today? It was the free and open access of Ruby and Ruby developers that provided their work for free to the Sketchup community and continue to this day. It is their work that makes Sketchup and while there are many "payware" addons the majority and the most popular of these are free and those come with no limitations as to their use.
-
Absolutely correct -- and I'll go one step further and say that if it were not for one particular ruby developer I would have left SketchUp long ago: Fredo6.
Take his plugins out and SketchUp loses a huge amount of modeling power.
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
For the record form.z is (and always was) an architectural modeler first and foremost -- however due to it's fine modelling tools it can do almost anything... however it would not be my first choice for figure work. It is also currently 64-bit... I do wish people would check facts before posting false statements just to try to prop up SketchUp.
As I said before, it(form.z) has it's faults... and it's not even my likely replacement for SketchUp. For my needs Modo is likely the software I will move to, however I acknowledge that Modo is a bit more powerful and complex than the average SketchUp user would want or need.
I was asked what software I though could easily replace SketchUp for architectural work, and form.z (or bonzai3d) would be my pick if coming from that POV.
Obviously, if you are very tied into SketchUp via paid plugins then it will be hard to move. However if you are one of the many former free-version users who are now looking to pay $595 for a software that really isn't worth it, and want an alternate option I would recommend checking bonzai3d (and form.z). At $100 less it has more power and the company is growing the tool at a much faster rate than Trimble is growing SketchUp. The workflow is very similar, and the modeling tools are much more powerful... so I think that is a valid recommendation.
If you are really open to new options I would also recommend checking Rhino, MoI3D and Blender. Each have great strengths and all are more worthwhile to invest your time and money into if you are now looking at a $595 (+ $95 each year) bill just to use the same SketchUp you were using for free.
If you are really tied to keeping your workflow free then you should absolutely make the switch to Blender and never look back.
Best,
Jason.From http://www.formz.com/support/faqs.html:
"On Windows 64, you can access 4 GB of RAM with the 32 bit version of form·Z, or up to 128 GB RAM with the 64 bit version. With OSX, form·Z versions 4.0 and later can access 4 GB RAM.."
This doesn't sound like 64bit to me on OSX..
Jason, you should know that I'm using Modo within my work pipeline for several years already - mostly for organic modeling and visualization. It's probably the best SDS modeler you can get out there. The program itself evolved from a modeler into a complete and very competitive package within the last years. But fact is, that Modo is not really suitable for pure architectural modeling - you can do most stuff quicker and more precise in SU. And I know that many architecture related Modo users would wish for the automatic snapping behavior and some sort of reshape tool from SU for instance..).
Also Modo isn't really competing with SU but rather with Maya, Cinema4d and 3D Studio.To end it here - What I and many other users want is an updated, new version of SU in the near future. With new, innovative features, less limitations and more performance and not a software which incorporated all these characteristics 10 years ago the last time..
-
@archheni said:
From http://www.formz.com/support/faqs.html:
"On Windows 64, you can access 4 GB of RAM with the 32 bit version of form·Z, or up to 128 GB RAM with the 64 bit version. With OSX, form·Z versions 4.0 and later can access 4 GB RAM.."
This doesn't sound like 64bit to me on OSX..
OSX is a problem for many developers to convert to 64-bit -- so I'm hardly holding that against them. Clearly Windows users, who comprise the vast majority, will benefit from 64-bit right now by a switch, whereas SketchUp may never make that leap.
I never recommended Modo here -- I simply said that was what I will most likely switch to... I have always tried to make it abundantly clear that I am not an architect. Furthermore, I clearly have stated I recommend bonzai3d or form.z for that use (for anybody who is interested in switching).
I do find it so tiresome that people keep wanting to twist things to somehow prop up SketchUp -- It should not need you to defend it, if it was truly a worthwhile upgrade then it would be obvious. The fact that you feel the need to do so speaks volumes about the weakness of SketchUp... at this point it is (and has been) a dying program that is being completely kept alive (read as "relevant") solely through the efforts of a devoted community.
Best,
Jason. -
@alan fraser said:
On the other hand, despite its ability to give developers a great shop window to display their wares...complete with extensive Description, links to websites and blogs, Comment section etc. it does not offer the intensive back and forth dialogue between developers and users that is possible here on SCF...the ability to beta or fine-tune a plugin to perfection.
The two facilities complement each other; they are not in competition. In fact, if anything, via its links, I suspect the Extension warehouse may well drive more users to SCF than ever before.I think Alan is correct in his prediction. EW belongs to Trimble and users will not get the ear of Trimble like they can the SCF store and the SCF forum. It's a corporate solution and corporations don't listen or take part in discussions. And they certainly don't help third party developers with problems.
Further, I just looked at the process for getting a plugin on EW. It is quite onerous. The success of the SketchUp Ruby API was that users of SketchUp could quickly fill a functionality gap by writing some code. They didn't need to be a professional software engineer. They could then share that code with other users, almost always for free, and those users could use it at their own risk. Yes, some poor code got into the mix. But the huge success was the creative users that provided functionality, not based on their coding expertise, but on their expertise in the area in which they work. This was a tremendous success. That creativity is now going to be stifled in favor of coding expertise unless the developer base continues to use SCF store or simply distributes their own code, each in their own way.
-
@chiefwoodworker said:
Further, I just looked at the process for getting a plugin on EW. It is quite onerous. The success of the SketchUp Ruby API was that users of SketchUp could quickly fill a functionality gap by writing some code. They didn't need to be a professional software engineer. They could then share that code with other users, almost always for free, and those users could use it at their own risk. Yes, some poor code got into the mix. But the huge success was the creative users that provided functionality, not based on their coding expertise, but on their expertise in the area in which they work. This was a tremendous success. That creativity is now going to be stifled in favor of coding expertise unless the developer base continues to use SCF store or simply distributes their own code, each in their own way.
I think the requirements is a good thing. Because we keep getting issues with new plugins causing conflicts. And that's been in part due to lack of guidelines from good practices. The people who use this forum do try to encourage best practices we're worked out over the time but it's been a bumpy road and it's very hard for new developers to discover. Now there are clear guidelines which means that developers can develop plugins from the start that plays nice - as oppose to all the plugins that's had to be re-worked due to clashes. (TIG has been involved in such a re-write project for instance - ask him how fun that was...)
I have personally spend a lot of time myself scanning through code of new developers looking for problematic code and recommending amendments. I'm glad there's an official instance that takes care of this now. Tedious work to say the least.
-
@marvins_dad said:
Still have clipping of the model view in one of my larger models...was hoping the under the hood work would have fixed that. It is a big issue when trying to zoom in to work on details as well as just getting shots of the model.
They do give a impression that it's fixed... but ques not. For me it was the only interesting feature so far.
Maybe just zoom in from some modest scale will work?@unknownuser said:
...Zoom In More
We increased LayOut’s maximum zoom capability by a factor of ten, from 1000% to 10,000%. At that magnification level, your sofa would be the size of Jupiter. Or thereabouts
edit: oops my bad, zoom improvement is only for LayOut.
-
@thomthom said:
I have personally spend a lot of time myself scanning through code of new developers looking for problematic code and recommending amendments.
I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be documented guidelines for developers to read an hopefully learn from and follow. And they should be encouraged to do so.
My point is that the process I read on how to get a plugin on EW is onerous and stifling. As a SketchUp user who is looking for a solution to a problem, ask me if I care that the developer was a software engineer who produced eloquent code and used best practices. We are talking about scripts, not applications.
What I want is a solution, and that is most likely to come from someone with knowledge of an area, who can also write a script. The key ingredient is someone who has expertise in an area who can provide me a solution. If his or her script sometimes steps on someone else's code and I have to disable that code for a period of time, so be it. It's not convenient, and I will likely inform him or her of the problem. But at least I have a solution.
Ruby itself was developed with much the same goal as SketchUp; eloquently easy to learn and use by anyone. Stifle that and you stifle SketchUp. A process for getting plugins to users, written only by professional software engineers following best practices, is both stifling and lacks creative solutions in an area of interest. An top that off with the fact that it is a corporation like Trimble guarding the gate, instead of a user/developer community like SCF. That a loose/loose proposition.
-
@thomthom said:
@archheni said:
Yes, this used to be the workaround. However now it doesn't work anymore. To quote ThomThom: "It only works on native toolbars. Doesn't work on Ruby Toolbars unfortunately."
I was referring to the new toolbar system on Windows. Didn't realize that OSX ha toolbar problems as well. Though it was just us peecee guys...
TT go take a look at SU on Mac. Toolbars and Windows are crap. If you use different monitors it is even worse. There is no program that takes such time rearranging toolbars and windows, even within sessions.
I suppose they did nothing on the appearance of SU on Retina Display. Really bad.
the Mac toolbar is stupid from the beginning, whatever the application. A huge waste of space and once you've filled a row you have to use a scroll button to see more.
Sometimes SU (which, I think, began on Mac) makes me want to get a PC. No other apps do.
-
@chiefwoodworker said:
My point is that the process I read on how to get a plugin on EW is onerous and stifling. As a SketchUp user who is looking for a solution to a problem, ask me if I care that the developer was a software engineer who produced eloquent code and used best practices. We are talking about scripts, not applications.
Nothing in the requirements there excludes hobbyists. It's really not that difficult to adhere to the guidelines set in EW's submission guide.
The fact of the matter is: SketchUp's Ruby API environment is shared. If someone adds global methods they add that method to every class and module. If someone modify core methods they break stuff for everyone else. That means the users suffer and it means the developers have to spend - waste - their time trying to debug what is going on.
If someone carelessly implement an observer that modifies the model at erratic times it can slow down SketchUp, mess up the Undo stack, corrupt the model or possibly crash SketchUp. The end user suffer.
That's what the EW requirements are all about. Not if your code look "pretty" or not, but to weed out rogue plugins that behave badly; breaking other plugins or potentially corrupt the model.
As long as you write your plugins so you don't mess up other people's plugins or the model you're fine. You can be as creative as you want with your code.
What exactly in the requirement is preventing you from developing something?
-
::Chiefwoodworker::
Hi,
I consider myself a hobbyists when it comes to programming since all I know is product of people like thomthom, TIG, Chris Fullmer, Dan Rathbun and many more that unselfishly decided to help me and many others.
I do agree with you that there should be a place where everyone can share code even if its not the prettiest but please understand that SketchUcation provide us already with this need. Not everything should be imposed to Trimble's Extension Warehouse I am totally fine with the verification process to avoid problems.
Cheers!
-
@chiefwoodworker said:
If his or her script sometimes steps on someone else's code and I have to disable that code for a period of time, so be it. It's not convenient, and I will likely inform him or her of the problem. But at least I have a solution.
Problem here is that it's not easy to know which plugin is the culprit. We've got too many threads here where people, many people, have spend hours trying to pin-point what is wrong - only to find out some plugin modified some of the core methods or something of the likes. That's lots of hours that could have been spent on more productive things - like developing new plugins. And it's especially frustrating when avoiding these issues are so extremely simple - just keep your plugin isolated in your own namespace and don't run wild with observers.
I'm baffled of the notion that an attempt to prevent this unnecessary time-waste is a bad thing... ?
-
Who needs the Trimble Extension Warehouse? (POOR choice of a name, given the results of the 3d Warehouse--for which there is NO news of a much needed purge.)
-
@unknownuser said:
Not everything should be imposed to Trimble's Extension Warehouse
My point exactly, although I will go one step further. We had this capability with the SCF store. Trimble wasted good SketchUp developer resources by reinventing the wheel and called it a major feature addition to SketchUp when what they should have done with those resources is something else altogether, like give us the Developer tool, fix bugs in the API, fix compatibility problems between the Mac and Windows versions etc. Instead we got a crappy release and have to wait another year to see if SketchUp is going to evolve as the tool we had always loved.
I really am done ranting on this release now. It is a complete disappointment, but I will wait a year and see what Sana Claus brings. Off to do some real work.
-
I used to use a big player architectural software package that was no where near as flexible as SU & LO, the upgrade cost per year was as much as new seat for SU and sometimes the upgrades didn't seem worth it with them either. Let's keep things in perspective on the cost of upgrade against improvements and be prepared to accept that SU is going to be adapted to fit Trimble's aspiration for a commercial user base.
Advertisement