Thank you for the extension links.

Even more elegant would be if "convert into groups" would be baked into Selection Toys.

However, the much more important wish is in my previous post - to make Selection Toys able to filter for solids and nonsolids.

It would be good if Selection Toys could have the option to use a selection of any containers (components and groups) and convert each into a group:

Selection Toys
Instances -> Convert into groups

Right now, Selection Toys has the ability to convert groups into components. However, sometimes the reverse is needed - to convert all components into groups (or make them individually unique components).

I have not come across this functionality in any other extension.

Use case: Several other extensions, e.g. some boolean tools, rely on geometry that is unique for correct operation. For example, when using a large solid volume to subtract from several hundreds of solid components at once, where the resulting intersections may cut each component at different places, some boolean tools will not work well with components. But they do work well with groups, since they are already unique.

It is a fringe case, but sometimes it is needed and it should be easy to implement.

It would be great if Selection Toys could find solids and nonsolids.

This feature would turn Selection Toys to a powerful solid modelling aid, along with Solid Inspector. We would use it all the time.

This could be done by adding to the context menu Select Only > the two entries:

Solids
Nonsolids

Likewise, the context menu Deselect > could contain:

Solids
Nonsolids

Being able to quickly find all solids or all nonsolids would be extremely useful for preparing complex models for 3D printing. Typically, the user want to find all nonsolids, since nonsolids block printability. Then the user would fix nonsolids with Solid Inspector and manual work.

This means that optimally, Selection Toys ought not just to look at the current context. It should parse the entire object hierarchy, starting from the current context. It also means that identifying solids along object branches should be exclusive, while identifying non-solids along object branches should be inclusive:

• When using Select Only > Solids, Selection Toys should only select groups and components that have 100% solids all the way down to all raw geometry.

• When using Select Only > Nonsolids, Selection Toys should select all groups and components that contain at least one nonsolid.

Sketchup (via Entity Info) currently does not report a group or component containing 100% solid groups or components as a solid. So this flag cannot be used. You have to look at the leaves first and work your way back up to the current context. Selection Toys should be able to correctly report contexts that contain both raw geomety and further groups and components.

Yes please. Sketchup's current inability to automatically collapse unused tray space is the main reason why Sketchup's old windowed UI behaviour is still preferable.

The ability to toggle axis inferencing off and on ought to be built into Sketchup. At the very least it should be amenable to plugin access. When? Right now.

Anyone who disagrees has not been drawing thousands of empirical countours, for example 2D plans of sinuous gardens, or figure silhouettes, and so on. Here, you want geometry snapping, parallel line inferences, etc, but you often want to turn axis snapping completely off. Resetting axis locally helps not.

Such tasks are certainly not uncommon. We often need to draw lines that are almost but not quite perpendicular to the context axis. Here, the context axis preference of the inference engine gets in the way again and again, blocking the user's intent. The best remedy currently is to zoom in aggressively until the axis snapping disappears, draw the line, and then zoom out aggressively. And do it again. And again. And again. The best current workaround is clearly inferior to a simple native axis inferencing toggle.

So, what's the value? For a project needing say 2000 such lines, add 2 seconds of zooming in plus two seconds of zooming out, for each line. That makes 8000 seconds. Multiply by - just guessing here - 20 000 users who need to to this once a year. What do you get?

44 000 hours every year, wasted. Hear us, Trimble programmers.

No, an axis inference toggle feature will not "scare away new users".
The lack of it will scare away 3D professionals.

Hello NicBelcher83 -

Good questions.

a) Yes, you can probably do all your 3D modelling in Sketchup, especially if you make fairly standard architectural forms. Sketchup is indeed very good at this. If, however, you often need smooth organic surfaces, double curving surfaces, and high precision when constructing and combining them, Rhino is a better choice. You make most forms in Sketchup as well. But you will not have the same precision and control of smooth surfaces, if you need them.

Sketchup is primarily targeted for small to medium-sized models, quick volume studies and visualisations. Since Sketchup is a mesh modeler and not nurbs or sub-D, in practice you must use the final detail level already from the start. You cannot work on visual proxys and automatically have their geometry remeshed to a finer version later on, like you can in other modelling paradigms. This means that mesh modelers like Sketchup are especially reliant on their ability to handle large amounts of geometry - a very fast geometry kernel.

The Trimble development team, however, appears to remain happily unencumbered by this fact. The Trimble development team most likely does not in earnest battle test their Sketchup software on heavy-duty models with tens and tens of millions of polygons, hundreds of layers, thousands of materials, and so on. You group 50 K edges - no problem. You group 500 K edges - go get a coffee, or two, or more. Sketchup's slowness when it comes to heavy geometry and heavy-duty work is a serious caveat emptor.

Handled well, however, Sketchup can do a lot for you, including creating advanced forms and handling complex geometry - if you learn to tread carefully.

b) Use the Sketchup plugin as far at it can take you. Only then use Maxwell studio. The reason is that the studio version breaks the live link with your model. After that point, you have to manually and individually propagate any change in the 3D model to your Maxwell scene. This quickly becomes unbearable. But if you are sure your model is finished, Maxwell Studio will give you greater control and is preferabe as such. One notable deficiency in Sketchup is that its native UV mapping is so limited as to be virtually nonexistant. But in Maxwell Studio, you can at least do some basic editing of your UVs, which you cannot in do in the Maxwell plugin the last time I tried it.

I hope that answers your questions.

Maxwell for Sketchup is able to produce visually extremely good results. The problem is not with the core functionality of the software, which I find satisfying at least in terms of rendered results. The problem is that Nextlimit appears to be having serious development problems. The Maxwell updates are few and far between, old problems persist, the UI does not work on 4K screens, they have lately released versions with features that are so unfinished that they should never have shipped (such as graphics card rendering, which simply disregard many common material settings).

Worst of all, Nexlimit appears to be uninterested in their users. Nextlimit's Maxwell forum is one of the worst ones out there. In contrast to most successful forums, the official Maxwell forum does not accept presale questions (buy a license or we will not allow you to engage with forum members), it does not clearly distinguish Nextlimit staff from users, it was down for a month earlier this year (unbelievable), it was recently remade but did not employ the clearly superior Discourse platform, and so on and so forth.

I really like the Maxwell philosophy of scientifically simulating the physical world. Maxwell on cpu still yields visually excellent results. The people in charge at Nextlimit, however, apparently have a somewhat limited understanding of how good customer relations work, how good forums work, how good software development works and how company transparency works.

Those things really matter. They matter because the choice of render engine implies that you will invest months or years in learning and working with it. Something at the Nextlimit management needs to change. I'm sad to say this, because I want Maxwell to remain one of the top rendering solutions. Extrapolating today into the future, I would go elsewhere.

Go for release, Anton.

Tops! Keep us posted, please.

Hello Emilia93 -

Good question indeed. We may be able to find something for you.

Yes, there are good general tutorials on Sketchup. Yes, there are accurate sources for existing old and famous buildings, too. But no, do not expect to find them combined in one.

Unless you have the architect's drawings or want to go out and measure old buildings directly - after bracing yourself to a very long ladder - the only accurate sources for reproducing old famous buildings are old books with measured drawings.

First - familiarize yourself with Sketchup by modelling a few simple objects well.

Then - try the bigger challenge of modelling a real building after measured drawings.

The fastest way forward in modelling is to sit next to someone who already knows the software well, asking her lots of questions as you model. Seasoned modelers tend to be patient by nature. So please reach out. If you absolutely cannot find anyone, combine simple video tutorials aimed at general modeling skills with trial and error and questions in forums like this.

Maybe we could supply you with some titles of architectural reference books with measured drawings of existing old and famous buildings.

So, what particular types of buildings are you looking for?

Thank you very much, Caul.

Flowify for Sketchup is a fine idea.

Your plugin has the potential to make several budding modeling ideas bear fruit.

Now looking forward to trying it.