SketchUp 2017 Wishlist
-
@ntxdave said:
I really would like to see full 64bit support so that model can be viewed in SketchUp the same way they can in some external programs like Lumion and LumentRt (among many others). A lot of my models lag (go into wireframe mode) when orbiting. This does not happen in those other programs.
Which part isn't 64bit? Anyway that's a long-standing discussion with one side claiming it would do nothing to speed up SketchUp. I would say: since the change to 64 bit there was an improvement, whatever the cause, but nothing of that magnitude.
-
@jql said:
You mean like this
Hi JQL - thanks for your GIF and yes, exactly like this!
I am ashamed a little - I still do not understand what you are doing and how you do this
does my desired feature already exist ? -
Someone needs to improve 3D warehouse. Add some rating to the models or something. Endless scrolling in search for a good model isn't how I like to spend my day. Also, I would like to see a section on it where we could sell our good stuff.
-
@hornoxx said:
@jql said:
You mean like this
Hi JQL - thanks for your GIF and yes, exactly like this!
I am ashamed a little - I still do not understand what you are doing and how you do this
does my desired feature already exist ?It not only exists:
http://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=sharp_editor
As I've seen you posting in the thread where it was initially posted:
http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=323%26amp;t=63488#p581479
So it's a bit strange you missed it!
-
@kimi kimi said:
Someone needs to improve 3D warehouse. Add some rating to the models or something. Endless scrolling in search for a good model isn't how I like to spend my day. Also, I would like to see a section on it where we could sell our good stuff.
Sell it here!
-
@david_h said:
as one edits a nested component you could "hide rest of model" but still be able to control the visibility of the group in the nest above and be able to do this all the way to the root of the tree, but still hide rest of model. Is this even possible? Plugin???
That would just make my day.
That would be killer!
I would love to hide/show components hierarchy above and below. I believe something like a breadcrumb toolbar for visibility was talked about before.
-
@jql said:
So it's a bit strange you missed it!
thanks JQL for bringing order in my huddle - both, in my brain and in my plugins!!
Your amazement is entitled - this particular plugin was completely gone from my memory...
-
Well it's one of those plugins that is crucial when you need it but you don't need it in every project.
-
Hi,
It would be convenient if you could hit the "esc" key to close a dialog menus rather than needing to click "ok".
Thanks,
John
-
hey guys - any rumors out there what su 17 is bringing to us?
-
I would love to not have to deal with trays. I avoid using 2016 altogether because I hate dealing with the wack-a-mole trays. It seems like an a third appendix - why did we need this?! How has it improved the program?! I don't get it at all...I can't get used to using this feature - it's a PITA. I hate the Trays. It should be an added optional feature - not a fundamental change to the program.
-
i think what we wish for next versions of sketchup stay just wishes and never seen by trimble, it is funny sketchup with many users doesn't have basic modeling tools such as quads,uv mapping, handling more polys, beautiful and organized interface and many other features. lack of these features always make me stronger for using other modeling tools like 3dsmax. i think using sketchup is not a serious tool for high end projects mostly for low amount of poly support and lack of high quaity ready 3d objects.
i wish companies like the foundry buy sketchup from trimble and make it super 3d modeling software but i think this will never happen!
sorry for poor english -
Would love for the reloading of models (XREFs) to be faster.
I work with huge models (300-500mb+) that are made up of smaller ones (100mb+) which different people can work on. But reloading those smaller models takes forever. Sometimes it's easier to delete and re-import rather than wait for it to reload.
-
I have invested 6 years into sketchup, I hope its not all in vain, but if 2017 release is again a disappointment then I will be moving on, I will keep that version and perhaps check back in 5 years. It really does need to "catchup" and overtake the competition
-
@pcmoor said:
I have invested 6 years into sketchup, I hope its not all in vain, but if 2017 release is again a disappointment then I will be moving on, I will keep that version and perhaps check back in 5 years. It really does need to "catchup" and overtake the competition
I'm curious. What do you regard as the competition?
I see that you use SU for woodworking, as I do.
As yet, I have not seen anything that comes even close to SU for timber fabrication. -
Hi Baz
I have look at a few like DraftSight, however BricsCad seems the most competitive to suit my needs. I have a lot of AutoCad experience, plus a good knowledge of VBA, so its interface is familiar and pricing is acceptable.
I will make my decision after the next upgrade, until then I will continue with Sketchup, I do on the whole love it, but the file sizes worry me, there is a need for nurbs(or a way of showing curves without loads of faces and memory use), better dynamic components functions and again memory management, better ruby ide (interface with a standard set of userform tools)...I fear that these are years away from improvement.I prime example recently I downloaded a curved truss then tried to upload it to sketchup, the cad file is about 800kb, sketchup could not fully import it and the result is a file of 3000kb. The curve? well....
Simple geometric shapes for building is so old hat. curves, shells, organic shapes are a problem to build in sketchup. This needs urgent attention
-
I might need to defer to more knowledgeable heads here, but the dwg imported ok for me and saved at 2.92MB, Not an excessive size m'thinks.
Also copied arrayed 10 times and still easily navigable without wire frames. Scruffy model tho, don't ya reckon? Trusses are out of line etc.
I think i could draw an accurate version of that in about half an hour, and then have all the advantages of components as well.
But if have the AutoCad skills, I s'pose you would want to leverage them. Though it seems most old ACad users here are so happy to have gotten away from the beast. -
if you look at the truss in a Cad viewer, the form is a true curve, whereas in sketchup its segmented. I can (and have) as you have pointed out build the same in Sketchup, even built a DC version, however it still uses a very basic rectangle/triangle surface, whereas the original, I believe, uses a technology that expresses the curve with fewer points and bent or bulged surfaces.
I not an expert in this field, but the change in file size and the difference in models causes concern.
In building the DC, I was always at pains to reduce its file size, as copies become unique. I can share a part from the DC without repercussions, but the full model is currently private, as my efforts may yet be financially compensated for.the total file size can vary depending on the amount of segments chosen, but sometimes for a decent view a component can be 2MB, then there is the issue of them becoming unique with change and multiplication.
I must stress again that I do love sketchup, but I am starting to see limitations
-
@pcmoor said:
if you look at the truss in a Cad viewer, the form is a true curve, whereas in sketchup its segmented. I can (and have) as you have pointed out build the same in Sketchup, even built a DC version, however it still uses a very basic rectangle/triangle surface, whereas the original, I believe, uses a technology that expresses the curve with fewer points and bent or bulged surfaces.
I not an expert in this field, but the change in file size and the difference in models causes concern.
In building the DC, I was always at pains to reduce its file size, as copies become unique. I can share a part from the DC without repercussions, but the full model is currently private, as my efforts may yet be financially compensated for.the total file size can vary depending on the amount of segments chosen, but sometimes for a decent view a component can be 2MB, then there is the issue of them becoming unique with change and multiplication.
I must stress again that I do love sketchup, but I am starting to see limitations
Fair enuf
-
@pcmoor said:
I will make my decision after the next upgrade, until then I will continue with Sketchup, I do on the whole love it, but the file sizes worry me, there is a need for nurbs(or a way of showing curves without loads of faces and memory use), better dynamic components functions and again memory management, better ruby ide (interface with a standard set of userform tools)...I fear that these are years away from improvement.
...
Simple geometric shapes for building is so old hat. curves, shells, organic shapes are a problem to build in sketchup. This needs urgent attention
I agree with you, but I wouldn't wait for 2017 for that, Sketchup will fundamentally be the same. Of course I don't know what will happen but you should really look somewhere else for this:
- Nurbs (Rhino, MOI, Blender, CAD, Onshape...?)
- Better ruby ID (have no idea how others work)
- Better DC (Rhino+Grasshopper, Onshape, Solidworks?)
I don't believe either Nurbs will ever show up in sketchup and I don't believe DC's will receive that much love.
However, there is something in the forge that might interest you, I know it interests me, but I haven't had the time to fully experiment it:
http://www.fluidinteractive.com/products/sketchup-extensions/viz/
Advertisement