SketchUp 2013 ;)
-
@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.
-
@pbacot said:
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.
No, it's at least not that bad..The last maintenance update of SU 8 did already support Retina (or HiDPI) for the workspace. SU13 supports it now for all native toolbars as well (only most ruby plugins still look washed out..with a few exceptions though).
-
@archheni said:
@pbacot said:
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.
No, it's at least not that bad..The last maintenance update of SU 8 did already support Retina (or HiDPI) for the workspace. SU13 supports it now for all native toolbars as well (only most ruby plugins still look washed out..with a few exceptions though).
What I find in v. 8 is the selected entities are nearly invisible. Same with many things like axis and cursors, even with the display resolution turned down. Fredo's function bars are squashed and made useless (maybe nothing SU can do on that?).
The lines do look cleaner on Retinal Display on the other hand, a small thing since SU team apparently does not care to improve the AA in SU for Mac (or have they in 2013?). Add the poor materials window and I wonder if they intend to drop the Mac one of these days.
(I think icon resolution is up to the icon maker.)
-
@chiefwoodworker said:
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 [...]
SCF Store was released a couple of weeks before SketchUp's release. Clearly they'd been developed in parallel. That's hardly reinventing the wheel. Should they have just cut the feature because SCF solution was released marginally earlier?
-
I completely agree with Thomas; rogue scripts are a pain in the arse. I recently had SU begin bugsplatting every time I tried to apply certain materials (I’m talking plain colours, so no iffy image format or mapping to contend with). The culprit finally turned out to be a roof-builder plugin I was trialing, which…as far as I can recall…didn’t even use materials, so the detective work can be pretty tricky and time-consuming.
As for the point about experts in a particular area coding scripts that get the specific job done, I think that is precisely what the devs are aiming for in this release. If you recall, the stated aim of Trimble acquiring SU was to use it as a platform across their range of applications. What better way to do that than to provide the plain vanilla program with an extension link built right into it? I’m pretty sure that all the coders resident on these boards will soon have all their scripts uploaded to the EW…but so will all the other 3rd party developers, be they involved in rendering solutions, landscape architecture, town planning or some aspect of interior design or straight architecture.
The first scripts to populate the EW were SketchUp’s own. When the Trimble buy-out was breaking news, all manner of speculation arose here as to the future of SU. The doomsayers were predicting that it would veer away into a variety of new flavours, none of which would suit them. In fact, what it appears to be doing is staying exactly the same, but readying itself for a whole new raft of bolt-ons, dependent on what you want to use it for, including Trimble’s own. To me, that makes much more sense than bringing out half a dozen different flavours…none of which might completely fit the bill.
-
@thomthom said:
@chiefwoodworker said:
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 [...]
SCF Store was released a couple of weeks before SketchUp's release. Clearly they'd been developed in parallel. That's hardly reinventing the wheel. Should they have just cut the feature because SCF solution was released marginally earlier?
No, it should never have made number one or two priority of things that made the list to be included in the 2013 release in the first place. There were much more valuable ways to spend resources.
thomthom, I am really at a loss to understand why you and other "almost SketchUp development team members" are being so protective of this release. We stand no chance of getting real improvement in SketchUp if people like you aren't willing to push back on Trimble. You have my admiration for the help you have provided me and other developers over the years, but you and the influential others should be honest with Trimle. This release is a joke, and to increase the price of SketchUp in the face of this joke is the height of arrogance.
It is curious to me why you guys have to be out in front protecting Trimble when there seems to be no Trimble people (short of Chris who has been a member of the team for only a short while) here listening to users concerns. Are you really pleased with this release?
-
I think that the problem with most of you is that you expect Sketchup will become like more "professional" modellers. So, like Cinema4d, and 3dsMax etc etc...These are parametric modellers with advanced tools and also more tools...Sketchup, now has a problem. What is the pilosophy behind Sketchup now and where does it goes to?. If they choose to have a modeller that is good for modelling and to create 'sketchy' renders with quite simple modelling tools..Sketchup is great now. But if they want to bring it to a higher lever they should choose another name(a new product) and use the same intuitive ui with deformer-tools etc etc...At this point, every release will be disapointing...believe me...
-
@unknownuser said:
... I am really at a loss to understand why you and other "almost SketchUp development team members" are being so protective of this release. We stand no chance of getting real improvement in SketchUp if people like you aren't willing to push back on Trimble. You have my admiration for the help you have provided me and other developers over the years, but you and the influential others should be honest with Trimle. This release is a joke, and to increase the price of SketchUp in the face of this joke is the height of arrogance.
It is curious to me why you guys have to be out in front protecting Trimble when there seems to be no Trimble people (short of Chris who has been a member of the team for only a short while) here listening to users concerns. Are you really pleased with this release?
Joe, it's beginning of new era for coder market(situation does not same as 2 or more years later... like daz studio or poser, vue and etc. market)... they want stay on it.
-
@gus r said:
@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.
W/O Ruby & the talented people here., SU would have died a quick death.
Might still do that! -
So if I understand the theory correctly this is Sketchup "Pro" as "SketchUp Basic"(vanilla) -- which would then be extended via Trimble developed scripts put on the "warehouse"... and I suppose those extensions would all be free? If not, what extra costs are we talking here?
Because $95 per year already eclipses the upgrade costs for previous versions of SketchUp Pro by a margin of 2:1... any additional costs would sweeten the deal just that much more.
Best,
Jason.
Advertisement