The only reason I can think of is that they are starting out as they mean to continue; and are laying the ground rules for authors of new scripts...perhaps from a background much wider than SketchUp's existing userbase. It might just be that they have further plans for the core that make such draconian measures necessary in the future...and they don't want even a backdoor method of other scripts being included in the Warehouse.
I'm assuming that if you were building a script from the ground up, it would not make a huge difference to build it EW-compliant.

Basically, they are not giving legacy plugins from the fan base here too much thought...because whether it's a plugin or some other modus operandus, we've been developing workarounds for years...like the SCF script...so they know we'll cope whatever the policy.
It seems a bit mean on people like Fredo who have hugely contributed to making SU what it is today; but I'm pretty sure that any wider SU userbase will get to hear about the present scripts one way or another, even if the SCF plugin itself has been denied access to the EW.

If it's not some situation like this, they've probably just shot themselves in the foot for no particular reason.

I only just came across this one. Not on this thread, I might add...I just checked to see if it had been mentioned before, as it's not on the index.
It's quite a useful script. It's designed as a tensile fabric plugin, but can also be used as a soapskin bubble if you increase the inflation pressure.

It would seem so. I'm quite surprised, as he had updated his library files right from the start, to make sure that the extensions worked in V2013. I've been using JPP, TOS, Curviloft etc for weeks in the new version.

Yes, good times.
Amazingly, it seems that past versions of SU have been archived and are still downloadable.
link
That'll please someone I know who is still on V6 anyway.

The forum had grown a lot by the following year.

Hi Juan,

Yes, I used the waybackmachine. It contains a massive archived selection of old stuff from the web. You can run a search on sketchup.com then use the calendar at the top to go back to any point. The archived dates will show up as pink dots.
Of course, not everything is archived...so many of the links are dead,

Here is the old forum way back in 2004 before the Google takeover.
Now you can revel in nostalgia.

It's even got bits of my old 3D-Figures site.

EDIT: And Objective Networks. Hmmm! where have I seen that format and layout used more recently, I wonder?
Seems you can still download the skp...but you get a very interesting result when you try the zip link.

Wanna see my V4 socks? No, on second thoughts, you don't...you really don't.

Off topic I know, but I have argued for years that FF should have a second income stream from selling content outright, alongside the subscription...maybe sets of 100-150...assorted people, vegetation, furniture, lighting and ornamentation etc. It's my personal view that we ignore a large part of the market by not doing so...but it's not going to happen.

There are, admittedly, a few very good reasons for not doing this...one of the strongest being piracy. We actually suffer from an extremely low attrition rate, resulting in very little of our content appearing in the 3D Warezhouse and other such places. This is because our subscribers are overwhelmingly loyal and protective. I know a whole bunch of my people appeared on some Thai site a few years back, but they weren't actually from FF, they were from my original 3D-Figures CD which predates FF...which kind of proves the point about piracy of retail content. Those figures go waaaay back and are very low poly. Their FF versions have been undergoing a rolling program of QA overhaul.

It's quite sad for the SU community that retail content doesn't seem to be able to last the course. I think it's largely a question of economic viability. The lower poly content required by SU often requires just as much work as the higher poly. I could, for instance, build a high-poly tufted sofa, using Soapskin, Artisan or TIG's Extrude tools, in much less time than it takes to craft a low-poly one. Yet I couldn't get away with charging anything like the prices asked for such high-poly content on places like Turbosquid.

Over the years we've had a few people...some from SCF itself, asking if they could join us...because the excellent content they were providing for the retail 'shop window' sites just wasn't selling. The attitude still prevails that it's more economic to waste countless otherwise-billable hours scouring the net for freebies, often followed by yet more hours cleaning them up, than actually taking the relatively minor financial hit of buying or leasing them. This has all the economic sophistication of deciding to walk the 10 mile commute to work every morning in order to save the bus fare or fuel cost.

It seems to be the case that the only substantial retail SU content site to have lasted any real length of time is Susan's Entourage Arts...and that is somewhat different being entirely 2D. The only other long-term SU content site with masses (ie thousands) of 3D models would seem to be Dynascape. It's not insignificant that they too have a subscription model.

Back on topic: One needs to look no further then the thread containing the links to 3D resources. That's been added-to for years. If it ain't there it probably doesn't exist. In fact some of those sites may well be now defunct.

Not today, but it lasted for several hours a couple of days ago.

Actually, Richard, clubber2k asked for a SketchUp equivalent of Evermotion...which would tend to suggest a model collection built specifically for SketchUp. Anyone insisting on ultra-high poly models can always use...dare I say it?...Evermotion itself, as those models are importable to SU via obj format. Failing that, there's always Turbosquid, or as you suggest designconnected. There's nothing to prevent you from doing that...but that content would crash SU...and you know it.

I wouldn't press the matter but for the fact that you have never lost an opportunity of condemning FF content as being too low poly and an having an undesirable (from your viewpoint) pricing structure. Do I need to mention the posts over at the PPB?

Regarding the first point; you have never been a subscriber, so how would you know? I leave others here to decide on whether the models in that render are so grotesquely low-poly and faceted that they are only fit for NPR.
As for the second...our pricing structure; several thousand subscribers (some of whom have been with us from our inception) would beg to differ. You, personally, might be able to get by with recycling a content collection of perhaps a few hundred models (which alone would cost $$$thousands if purchased outright) but others, especially interior and set designers need thousands of models..far more than even Evermotion offers. For them, subscription is the only realistic option. However high-poly Evermotion is, if it doesn't have a model of the MB Paley sofa I modeled last week on demand(and it doesn't)...and you need one...it's not much use to you is it?

Buying good quality SU content outright is a pipe-dream...always has been. Yes, there are some models here in the content store...but not many. But if it wasn't for the traffic through the rest of the site, that store would go the way of sketchupmodels.com and all the others that tried it.

Assuming that those new materials aren't lurking in Documents, instead of looking for individual materials, you could try renaming your V2013 Materials folder to Materials.Old then copy the entire V8 Materials folder into V013. There are 3 new material libraries that you'll also need to copy to your new Materials folder...Geometric Tiles, Material Symbols and Tonal patterns.
That ought to solve the problem, as all non-customized materials ought to be then removed from the search path.

Love 'em.

@arail1 said:

Gee - maybe take a chill pill?.........

Gee - maybe physician heal thyself? I'm not the one bitching on multiple levels; if I was any more chilled I'd give myself frostbite. Still...if it eases your angst...

I'd get that Déjà vu seen to Mike.

Don't you find criticizing a decision to remain silent a little hypocritical...when your own profile contains absolutely zilch?

For myself, I tried Google Groups very briefly after @Last closed down and before this place kicked off to any great degree. I found it as appealing as a Tax Return, and told them so...before I left.

On a broader note, now that SU is no longer part of the Google Empire, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why it's official forum has to remain hampered by the visual desert of the Groups. Somebody ought to be pressing Trimble to give them web space for something like they had before...but better.

@richard said:

Form Fonts has an awesome collection though probably a little low poly for rendering...

If they were too low poly for rendering we'd have been kind of wasting our time for the last 10 years, don't you think?

Well there are versions on every other forum, so why not here.
Feel free to add more

1 to change the light bulb then post about it
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could've been changed differently
1 to move it to the Extensions and Applications V-Ray forum
2 to argue and then move it to the Corner Bar
7 to point out grammar/spelling errors in post about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue whether it's a light bulb or lightbulb...or light-bulb.
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is Lamp
15 know it all who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take the discussion to the lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
15 to say that they were underwhelmed by the latest version of light bulb
12 to say that the new lightbulbs don't work in their sockets; and ask what are they missing?
7 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then to post the correct URLs
3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add, "Me too."
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
4 to say, "Didn't we have this same discussion a while back?"
13 to say, "RTFM before posting questions about light bulbs."
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 2 years from now and start it all over again.

There's an OFFICIAL SketchUp forum?

One of the first things I learnt...way back in the day, during my teacher training...was that you don't continually whine and nag. Your whining just becomes like wallpaper. People become inured to it and simply ignore you.

What would you have expected his response to that particular point to have been, Jason? That he'd shoot off at a complete tangent and start talking about Advanced UV mapping or NURBS surfaces? Late in the day or not, it's an improvement on what we have now.