@linea said:

Wow you have some impressive peers then, did they all study at the same place? University of Oregon?

@unknownuser said:

Maybe computers will never replace this wonderful art? Is it a waste of paper? Yes. (IMHO)

Well computers use electricity which is still often created by coal burning power stations, so in carbon terms, there might not be much difference.

Yes, Tinker studied Architecture at the U of O but the rest of us studied at the Art Center College of Design in Pasedena, CA. I included Tinker because I have known him for a very long time and we both studied Architecture. I only briefly studied Architecture before going to ACCD but I worked as a grunt, draftsman, and project leader for local architects where I lived for several years.

You may be right about the carbon footprint of coal vs timber? I hope that complicated question can find an answer sometime soon. Like nearly everything, it's not as simple as just measuring the carbon produced by the manufacturing process alone. Transportation, loss of habitat, pollution produced at each stage of the process, the various tradeoffs and costs of recycling old computers/parts vs wood based products are just a few factors that need to be weighed. I'm hopeful that the, currently, very inefficient use of electricity in nearly all products will become much more thrifty as we learn and innovate the problems.

@prss said:

Very good point. It becomes very difficult, say, to do a fleeting sky in a paint program with a tablet if the cursor lags behind and you are not able to watch as you paint.

With best regards
PRSS

All good points. Thanks. I agree. I'm hopeful computers will become fast enough to handle realtime sketching. The original "WYSIWYG" premise still holds true. And "what you see is what you get" means RIGHT NOW. . . damnit'. I know some of the best sketch artists on earth and they still use pencil and paper. That says a lot. Maybe computers will never replace this wonderful art? Is it a waste of paper? Yes. (IMHO) But, I think I would be more creative if I could sketch in 3d without all of the BS associated with complicated 3d programs. I love working with 3d engineers but if I could sketch an idea, myself, roughly test it's feasibility, then refine it, I could be much more efficient in furthering the process. I don't want to spend a year learning a damn program that only limits my creative process. That's what I love about SketchUp . . it's quick to learn and I gets results.

SketchUp is great . . . but if it's going to be more than a mom and pop 'extrude and follow me' program then the Google/SketchUp folks better start actually using this software to CREATE. I know Americans are a tad low on self esteem these days . . . but I also know from personal experience that the core ideas from 'some' of the best products are generated from the good ol US of f'n A but . . . by far . . the best implementation comes from the amazing minds and humbling skills in Europe and Asia. I don't mean to say the USA rules in terms of ideas but . . . setting egos aside . . we are all good at different things. I came from a class in design school who created the Porche Boxter , the new 911 (Grant Larsen), the Dodge Viper (Oh damn I forgot his name, good guy though!) , the Audi TT, the new VW Beatle (Freeman Thomas), the new model for electric vehicles (Dan Sturges), Air Jordans and Nikes most innovative products (Tinker Hatfield) and some of Nikes most influential ideas (me and all the great people I work with).

Americans . . . currently. . . SUCK when it comes to implementation. ie- GM, Crystler, Ford, etc . . . I think this has more to do with bad marketing, bad strategic planning, bad marketing, clueless management and the perpetuation of the 'good ol boy system'. I probably should also mention the embarrassing need for American auto makers to 'enhance' their testicular gravity with supremely stupid, gas guzzling models like, ie Hummers, Escalades, Ford 150's and Dodge Rams. Having said that, however, if the creative minds in the USA could take their ideas to a further . . higher level, before turning the ideas over to the bean counters, spinmeisters, number crunchers, and manhood enhancers we could gain a great advantage and produce a more effective, efficient, fun and PROFITABLE products.

For whatever it's worth . . . Don't bother flaming me . . but I will respond to constructive ideas.

@xrok1 said:

looks like alot of frustration as the computer misinterprets gestures??????????

Good point. The concepts around the software seem pretty good though. I was simply thinking about the future of SketchUp and where they might take the program from here. SketchUp handles pure (spheres, cubes, cylinders) geometry very nicely but is pretty laborious when trying to work with compound surfaces. The "ilovesketch" (dumb name) software somehow feels like something that could fit with SketchUp nicely. As to the problems with misinterpretations of gestures, I would hope this is something you could get a feel for after using it for a short while. SketchUp had an incredibly short learning curve for me compared with a program like Maya. . . I gave up on Maya.

Anyway, thanks for the informative replies.

@unknownuser said:

Seems this was yet shown some many times here

Sorry, but I did do a search for past posts and found none.

I don't know if anyone here has seen this yet - "ilovesketch"? It's not available to buy. . yet . . but this would be amazing if it were combined with SketchUp . . . in my opinion. Check out this vimeo vid and let me know if you agree. http://vimeo.com/1669862