This is interesting because I have massive problems with the Nvidia 8800GT on my Mac Pro. Similar in VectorWorks as well. Just awful. There is a difference between performance with different cards, so best to get a recommendation from someone before you spend your money.

The thing about this problem (which most Windows users don't realise) is that you just can't update drivers. They are built into the OS, and to update the driver, you need an OS patch to fix it. Sometimes they are released for specific models, sometimes they are rolled out in general updates.

A bit of a pain, but that's the thing with the Mac, some good things, some not so good.

@kwistenbiebel said:

Correction, for modeling simple things only.
SU is probably suited for woodworkers, as the geometry will be simple enough.
For architects, SU is only suited for pre-design

Actually I disagree, and I'm sure this was really meant tongue-in-cheek.
I have attached some links to images of why I disagree. These are images of a model which is for design development.

We have all seen some of your fabulous work, you can't tell me that you don't use SU as a tool for evaluating design options. This is why I got involved with rendering For me it makes SU a proper design development (and communication) tool. These images are just based on showing the client design proposals, no creating great images. In fact I only really use rendering for this purpose. It is true that free-form organic modelling with any degree of precision is almost impossible, but my buildings don't have the budget for this degree of complexity anyway. I add door handles and even signs to my models, so I can get a more accurate idea of how things will look in real life. All architects must have experienced the awful reality that occurs when what you have designed in the office, just doesn't look right at all when finished. I try to use SU (and renderers) to avoid/minimise this.

I read JB's interview with Architosh quite carefully before responding. I have to say that I agree with his whole multithreading argument. With something like rendering for example, it lends itself very well to multithreading. You start a process and then when the CPU has a big chunk of work to do, it can be divided up into separate chunks for parallel processing. It is probably only Ruby and a few other operations that would benefit from multi-threading. For example file import/export, sandbox activities and that sort of thing where a specific task can be 'farmed out' to the various cores. This is his linear workflow argument and it seems to be convincing to me.

As has been discussed previously, one of the drawbacks with the later releases of SU is slow orbiting. I did think that some kind of keyboard override to disable inferencing while orbiting might improve things a lot here. This seemed to me to be completely logical and perhaps an easy temporary fix. However, the point about the viewer seeming no faster without (apparently) having inferencing was interesting and would tend to indicate that this might not be the case. Can anyone shed any more light on this? We know the SU team checks out the forum threads.

But - I have to come back to the point about orbiting (and high poly support because the 2 issues are linked), SU is not fast enough when manipulating large or complex models. I think the survey is misleading because the questions are too vague. If you want a survey to be of any value at all, you have to be very specific about the questions asked, otherwise you can't really draw any meaningful conclusions. In my opinion, the question about making SU more powerful should have explicitly mentioned adding new features, and the issue regarding improving speed ought to have been clarified in terms of improving shadows, and performance with more detailed models. I mean, in what other ways is the performance unsatisfactory?

I am an unashamed SU fan, I really love using the application, except when the limitations become an obstacle to the design process. It's useful and fun to be able to model a whole building, including some of the detailed construction elements, and to see how these things affect the whole building before you actually start construction.

I'm sure I can't be alone in going to site and finding that the clumsy and ugly way some of the services have been integrated lets a building down. SU has the facility to include as much detail as possible to effectively simulate construction before you get on site. The more detail you add, the more problems you can anticipate and solve. I think it's practical, efficient and (still) fun!
With the cool plugins that are available, you can try out different design options, including light fittings, furniture and render them to show clients and inform the design.

I'm not sure the SU team really appreciate exactly how obsessive architects in particular can be in terms of design. With components (and more so with DCs) we can be so much more fanatical about this stuff. For some of us it's like 3d OCD! As a result it is absolutely imperative that we get nice, smooth navigation of detailed models. Other apps can do it, and I don't think it's an unfair request. It might be a massive job to improve the geometry manipulation, but I'm sure it's going to be necessary some time or other, so why not now? You really need to get the foundation of anything right, and a fast, smooth and reliable geometry engine which supports tens or even hundreds of thousands of polygons is essential.

No-one is expecting the core application to be a cheap or free alternative to 3ds max, Lightwave or Maya with NURBS and bones and fabric and in-built photorealistic rendering, but we do want to be able to add lots of detailed basic geometry and be able to smoothly and freely navigate some complex models with textures and shadows.

To be honest, I don't really think there is much point in adding many new features if we can't use the existing ones with a satisfactory degree of complexity. If SU does become 'more powerful', it's unlikely that this is going reduce model complexity is it?

So if I'm speaking from a position of unparalleled ignorance, sorry - but quite a few of us really do think that we need a more capable 3d core.

I have just updated to the latest OSX 10.5.6 and yup, the graphics problems are still in evidence.
I have done a little research and found that the problem does indeed seem to be related to the NVidia 8800GT in the Mac Pro.
I am getting awful problems in VectorWorks 2009 as well. On the VW forum, guess what, others with the same card are having the same problems. These are similar to those in SU. Slow screen refresh and incomplete update, jerky performance. All in all, pretty crap really.

So, I have started a thread on the Apple support forum here:- http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1829118&stqc=true

Please post if you are having the same problems.

You should be able to calculate the volume, and the maths to work out the weight given the material type and density should be straightforward.

There are a couple of landscape designers on the Podium (integrated rendering plugin for SketchUp) forum. There is an example here - http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/supodiumforum/vpost?id=3167078

Actually my MacBook Pro seems to be better than my Mac Pro, which is just weird. I have tried all the various combinations of hardware acceleration with and without fast feedback and maximum texture size. However, I have unchecked the 'fast feedback' option and terrain import now works. Obviously I wasn't being rigourous enough in my checking of the options before, and not trying the import terrain on a new file with the option unchecked. With Gaieus's advice about georeferencing, all is seems to be well regarding GE integration. Thanks Gaieus and CraigD!

Regarding OpenGL, I always have the updater running and the latest versions are always installed. Actually I suspect this might be a bit stupid, because I suffer from all the glitches that each new update introduces. I really do think that part of the problem is with the NVidia OpenGL implementation. I am having the problem with slow screen refresh and update that kanonbal has though.

@modelhead, you really can't compare a cheap PC and a Mac. And to claim that because you aren't having any problems with your cheap system, it may be in some respects better is misleading. I accept that the comment was probably tongue-in-cheek, but I don't remotely want to get into the whole Windows v Apple flame war thing. It is true that I am having problems with some things, but it's maybe a step too far to suggest that I have a 'lemon'. It's possible, but there are lots of variables, including the fact that I am logged on to a Windows 2003 server active domain. I work directly off the server, and problems with server traffic and the domain, affect me directly. Unlikely that these are causing the display lags though.

Thanks for the comments guys.

@kannonbal, I have exactly the same problems with Safari on my MacBook Pro at home and on my Mac Pro in the office. This indicates that either settings on both are screwed up, or that something doesn't work. If it's working for you, it's probably my settings. If you have Google Earth, could you possibly try to import terrain into SU7 please? There are instructions here http://sketchup.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=36241.

@Gaius, thanks for the georeferencing tip. This probably explains some of my difficulties. I'll try again in the office tomorrow. I have no idea what is causing the imported terrain to be completely black though. Previously on XP with SU6, this has worked really well. Perhaps this is an issue related to the NVidia card.

@Tim, yup can't even force quit, and the Mac equivalent of the 3-fingered-salute doesn't work either. In fact the only solution is the power button. Or probably a big hammer.

@Sketch3d.de, Ah, didn't realize there was a Quadro card available too. Imperfect OpenGl support would make sense. The really stupid thing is that actually I have 2 graphics cards in my machine, An ATI and the NVidia. I upgraded my machine from the standard spec, but because the basic one comes with the ATI card, the resellers left it in. It's just disabled. I am tempted to enable this one, and forget about the troublesome NVidia one. Question is, why haven't Apple or Google fixed this? It's not like it's an obscure card, and it's not like there is a huge variety to support as far as the current range is concerned at least.
Regarding Safari, I have Firefox as well (which is what I'm using now) but for some things it isn't as good. I wanted to standardise on a single browser but that doesn't look possible for the moment. The new version of Safari (v4) is reportedly massively faster.

Is there anyone out there with a Mac (preferably with the Nvidia card) that is able to place SU Models in GE? At least I can find out if my black terrain is an isolated issue.

I have been having a number of problems with SU7 Pro ever since I installed it.

First of all there is the crashing and system lockups. Initially SU7 made my system fundamentally unstable. Periodically I would be orbiting a model and SU would just freeze. Not just a minor, oops-I'll-terminate-it-and-just-restart crash, a full-on system hang with the spinning beach ball of death.

The machine would not respond to any input at all, and needs to be physically powered off. Not good. Since I disabled the application launcher Quicksilver, things seem to be a lot better but I'm not sure we are out of the woods yet. I still get crashes, but locking up the system doesn't seem to happen any more.

The display update isn't good enough. It's slow, it's jerky, and screen refresh is appalling. I seriously had better performance under SU 4. I'm tempted to think that these problems are because of the NVidia 8800GT card installed, which sounds like it ought to be great. So far though, it's not. Works fine with Google Earth, but not with VectorWorks or Sketchp. There is an obvious answer to this and that is, "Google can't be responsible for dodgy hardware". Well, yes and no. It is true that supporting all cards for all architectures isn't feasible. But we are talking Apple, and their range of hardware is severely limited, handicapped even, compared with Windows. This is the highest spec graphics card for the highest-spec Mac, so really, it ought to work at least acceptably well, which IMO it doesn't.

The most pressing problem for me at the moment is the fact that I can't import Google Earth terrain. I really need this facility at the moment.
There are 2 problems. First of all when I use the "Get current view" button, the current terrain is inserted miles (I mean literally miles on the screen) away from the model. Fine, zoom in and move the model. Except that I can't. First of all, the imported Google Earth terrain is black, secondly, the way the clipping plane works with large models, means that you can't zoom in. I tried to search for these issues, and I found a tip which indicated that turning off 3D buildings would help. So far it hasn't. The clipping problem is the same with SU6.
So - I have a scene which has 2 tiny (but simple) blocks, one represents the terrain from GE, the other, the building. I can't move them much closer together because I can't zoom in without the model disappearing. Even if I could, I would have a black terrain anyway.

In, short, I'm not having a lot of fun with SketchUp 7 Pro at the moment, and it is proving to be an impediment, rather than the useful and reliable tool it has been for years.

Is anyone else having these problems, or do any of you have any utilities or workarounds which may help?

[Edit: and the problem with being unable to use this forum with Safari is still present. I can sign in, but when the page gets redirected, I get signed out again. This happens on both my Macs my laptop at home, and mac Pro in the office. Windows users can feel a little smug at this point. I have the latest top of the range Apple hardware and SketchUp doesn't work properly on it, and even accessing the forum isn't straightforward]

Podium (http://www.suplugins.com/) is easier to use than IDX or Kerkythea, and has better quality than IDX. The evaluation version has only 1 limitation, and that is that output size is limited to 500x500.

I have downloaded this and it is an exe file, which means Windows only. Any chance of a Mac version too Al?

A little too much negativity here IMO. Parametric components will be spectacular. Think about it, you will be able to add more and more detail to your buildings really easily with cool components downloaded from the 3D Warehouse. Roof trusses, balustrades, curtain walling, even arrays of roof tiles.

I like the ability to easily get 3DW content in and out of your models - nice.

I don't use LayOut (although I am a long time Pro user) but it really needed improving, and I hope it is really usable now.
I speak to lots of people who want to draw up plans for their own houses. When their requirements are simple, recommending a CAD package is way OTT. SU and Layout might be perfect for them. Unfortunately LayOut isn't with the free version though.

I don't want to gloss over the not so good omissions though. There has been a lot of mention of multi-core. This is misleading IMO. The key thing is the speed and ease of handling large and complex models.

Google has given the wonderfully easy to use toolbox with which we can make anything we want. Yet the more we play with it, the more unusable it becomes. Each time they release an update, they give us more cool stuff to add more complexity, but don't address the speed issue. So we can add as much detail as we want to our scenes, and do it really easily as well and navigate in textured, shaded 3D with shadows - or not.

This brings us onto the shadow bug. Let's face it, you probably knew this was going to crop up Coen keeps telling us (ad nauseam) that it's a legal issue. Well - yes, and no. Carmack's reverse and its technology is a legal issue. Getting around it with a different approach isn't. How many other 3d apps have this problem? None that I am aware of. If other applications can make it work Google should be able to as well.

I think part of the problem is that the Google guys only work on small models that aren't particularly complex. This must be true because I'm quite sure if they found, like I do that with even fairly smallish models with lots of detail get very slow to manipulate and update on screen with shadows and textures on - and I have an 8 core Mac Pro!

This is fair, after all, they aren't design professionals working with horrendously complex models. However they do need to get to grips with what a large segment of their market uses it tools for. The fact that so many of use have been asking about speed when dealing with complex models and shadows, mean that these things are really important for us and genuinely do need fixing. Google - we aren't idly b*tching, we really need this stuff!

In summary, some nice tools that may well change the way we work with SU, but because core functionality needs improving, they may well show up some fundamental limitations of the application. For me 6/10

This is how Maya works and it's really useful. Definitely do-able I would say.

Whaat - you are an absolute genius. You seem to produce scripts that others can only dream of. This is beyond the expectations and prbably vision of most people. Forget SU7, you are a one man SketchUp enhancing machine!

For me, this has taken the gloss off SU7. It makes me think that Google just need to keep developing the core featurres (multi-core, shadow fix - predictably) and leave you and the other 'Ruby elite' to expand the feature set.

I'll buy this for definite!

No need to double-post I have responded on SketchUp, Podium, Vectorworks and general value for money in your other thread.

@hazza said:

When I was looking to buy a new laptop last year this is what it came down to:

1. $4000 Apple running Ubuntu Linux

1. $2000 Dell running Ubuntu Linux

Why on earth would anyone want to buy a Mac to run Linux? The point about Apple MacBooks, is that they are much higher quality machines from what I have seen compared with other laptops. Compare the Sony Vaios instead for example, hideously expensive, awful support, and not a great deal of performance for the money. You pay for the style and quality.

With Apple machines, you pay for little touches like good battery life, the Magsafe power connector, isight camera, slim elegant case, great screen 802.11n wifi, slot-loading dvd combo drive, great battery life, lack of noise, great illuminated keyboard, lack of viruses, lack of spyware, double-tap right clicking, 2 finger scrolling, no driver problems etc. Yes they are more expensive, but if you want quality you have to pay for it. Comparing it with a cheap poorer quality machine is pointless. You can always find something cheaper. It's like comparing a Hyundai with a Lexus.

My machine is slim, light, fast, quiet, and a pleasure to use. it is by far the best laptop I have ever used. I chose to pay 20-30% more, but I think it's worth it.

@bertb said:

Has anyone any relevant information how quick SU runs on the new Apple MacbookPro 15"
Would be very interesting to hear
Bert

I meant that SU runs slowly under VMWare on the MBP. The OS X native version of SketchUp works perfectly well. It's fast enough for me and I work on some reasonably-detailed models. I wouldn't go back to Windows by choice, and I have far more experience with it than I have with OS X.

I switched to the Mac last November (specifically for testing Podium on the Mac) and after an uneasy settling-in period I'm very happy with my MacBook Pro. It runs XP reasonable well under VMWare Fusion, but SketchUp is slow. VMWare Fusion supports multi-core processors for Windows, whereas Parallels doesn't, but this isn't the only consideration when you choose which to go for.

In my office in the last month I switched to OS X with an 8 core Mac Pro with 8Gb of RAM. Nice and quick, but as always with a really good spec, you expect everything to be instant, and it's not

I use Podium and SketchUp happily, with Vectorworks. The latest version (2009) supports drag & drop import of AutoCAD and SketchUp files. I have imported AutoCAD files into SketchUp on the Mac without any problems. In the office my Mac is one of only a handful in a predominantly Windows environment. Everything is networked and Entourage works really well with Windows 2003 server. Actually networking generally is problem-free. With Podium, SketchUp and Vectorworks, I have access to most things I need. The problems I have had relate mainly to lack of Photoshop plugins. Things like Redfield's Seamless Workshop don't work on OS X, and there are a few other little utilities that I miss.

All in all, OS X has worked really well for me. Podium v1.5 was significantly faster on OS X than Windows. Until multi-core v1.6 beta was released, the fastest render times were with MacBook Pros, even competing against custom-built powerful desktop machines. Podium v1.6 for OS X will be out soon, and I'm hoping that it will exhibit the same superiority in terms of speed that v1.5 did.

In conclusion, for me it's all good, and not having to worry about viruses and spyware is brilliant!

Marc, that is exactly what an IES files does. You use one of these files and it automatically gives an accurate representation of the output. They actually do 2 things, they define the light strength in real world units, and the shape of the light distribution.

Because these things are defined as data, you don't need to have a realistic model of the actual geometry. If you do have a reasonable model of the geometry and can specify light strength in watts, you don't need IES files.

The benefits are accurate calculation without needing the geometry of the fitting. The drawback is that not every fitting you want to use has an IES file. If you want to use specific fittings that don't have the data available, you have a problem.

LightUp's proposed features should allow you to use IES files when you want, and when they don't exist, you can model the fitting and still get a good representation of the output. I don't think it will give you the calculation in lux levels though - unless Adam is planning to add that.

Adam - sorry, I didn't mean to imply that IES would be part of LightUp. These sort of things aren't for me to announce

I just thought this was potentially an excellent use for your application. You don't have an example of this sort of thing in your gallery which is a shame because it's a great idea. It doesn't seem logical to me to export a sketchup model to a lighting program to get an inferior visualisation if you don't want a numerical analysis of the light spread. You should be able to get a much nicer realtime drive-through within SketchUp using LightUp.

@anglaret said:

Bigstick

The difference with lightup, is that it is made with real fixtures,
with exact optic, intensity and lamps that will be installed.

It is not a nice presentation. The candelabre are Philips made, and if
you ask I can give you the exact reference.Lamps are iodure 100W.

The second shot shows the exact luminosity on the ground in lumens.
Out of that study, I can propose to my client a true solution.
MA

I'm fairly sure that LightUp will support real world lighting units sometime soon. Dialux I believe uses IES lighting definitions, which allows you to simulate accurate lighting distribution without modelling the actual fittings. Dialux is normally a lighting design tool which will tell what the expected lux level will be at a particular point. If lighting levels are the most important consideration, Dialux/Relux and this sort of thing are the tools to use. If you want a decent rendering though to show a visualisation of the environment, I would have thought LightUp would have been a better tool though.

So, Dialux is undoubtedly better for calculations and analysis, but for a realtime drive-through simulation, LightUp has to be better.