Yes, in modern architecture (which I often find sterile and unappealing) you find those shapes less, but in classical architecture more often in the ornamentation (which is often very sculptural/organic) than you might notice at first.

Any architectural stuff I do is more sci-fi or fantasy oriented so obviously I'm going to be more influenced by the very old or very futuristic architecture -- and tend to ignore everyday styles.

When I said near useless I meant in terms of comparable native capabilities with other general modeling application -- which has been my foundational stance for quite some time... I want SketchUp to become a competitive general modeling application. Anything less than that is unacceptable to me...

Best,
Jason.

I think your english is very good -- so no worries there

On the issue of plugin-less SketchUp used for Architectural designs -- I could buy that, but only if you are working with a very specific type of architecture (square boxy)...

As soon as you get into more organic structures the native tools fall woefully short (both in terms of performance and utility) -- not to mention if you do interiors you are going to need furnishings which are often too "organically" shaped for SketchUp native tools to create satisfactorily.

At that point you could import them from another app, but where would you be without something like ThomThom's CleanUp? Furthermore why should something like that even be a 3rd party invention? These types of tools should have been made by the development team in the first place -- part of the reason other packages often don't have as many plugins is because there is less need for them since the development teams did their job properly.

I also don't buy the architects POV as being the most important one here -- better general modeling tools and capabilities benefit all users equally... there is absolutely no reason to be against SketchUp developing better general modeling functionality.

Best,
Jason.

I guess you can look at the Ruby API as either half-full or half-empty. On the one hand it has some real issues that are holding up 3rd party development, on the other hand if it didn't exist at all SketchUp would be near useless.

I can safely say however that it is not exceptional in any way -- many other 3D software have equal or better APIs... with the most exceptional feature being the ease of accessibility Ruby provides as the language (versus C++ or similar). However there are drawbacks to that choice as well...

I'll never say anything against the 3rd party developers -- they have worked wonders with SketchUp and they are the only reason why the software is remotely usable for me. In all my tutorial videos I made sure to point out some examples of the many plugins available here. However there are many things beyond their control, and SketchUp's performance issues is one of them.

I'm also really tired of half-baked "features" in new releases -- "solid" tools that aren't, and a "toolbar fix" that isn't, are just a few examples of some of them gems we've had to pay for... I hold John responsible for this since he is the lead. However, I also give him credit for Layout since he was lead on that too -- but I do wonder how so little of the advanced elements of Layout (relative to SketchUp) have failed to make it into SketchUp.

Best,
Jason.

I do wonder how much of that sentiment is driven by the fact that you all use it for architecture? It seems logical that your perspective would be heavily biased due to your desired output.

I would be curious what users from other disciplines have to say about this...

Regardless, to fairly evaluate the program you have to remove all plugins and then consider its utility in your workflow... I would hazard a guess that even the hard-core "architectural sketching" crowd would find this program laughably unusable without their pet plugins. That is as strong of a condemnation as I can think of for how badly the Sketchup dev team has fallen down on the job.

Best,
Jason.

I guess they should not have changed that v5 tagline then, since it's quite obvious that SketchUp isn't a great choice of general modeling app compared to the vast majority of pro modeling apps.

The only real modeling tools we got in v8 was a half-hearted attempt at "solids" and Boolean functions -- which doesn't even work well without additional 3rd-party plugins. "Upgrades" like that are never going to make SketchUp competitive... but I'm not expecting any better from John, his track record speaks for itself.

BTW, This is something I realized long ago -- I'm not saying anything I don't already know ... as I've said before I already have one foot out the door. I'm just waiting for final confirmation (upon release of 2013) before I close the door.

If SketchUp becomes a true dedicated AEC app then I'm OK with that, but I have no use for a such a thing -- and I think they are currently doing themselves a disservice by pretending to be something they are clearly not (a general purpose 3D modeling application).

Best,
Jason.

I don't do straight architectural modeling so I couldn't say -- but I have recently modeled the exact same complex mechanical structures in several modeling applications and found SketchUp much slower for me (especially as the poly count rises), and generally incapable of even making the forms without 3rd party plugins.

I hear the refrain "it is not the right tool for that" being thrown about... so I guess the "3D for everyone" is also a mislabeling. I mean that phase says SketchUp is meant to be a general modeler -- not an "architectural sketching" specialist.

If a "architectural sketching" program is what Trimble thinks it bought (and wants SketchUp to be) then perhaps it's better for them to simply clearly say so.

If not, and SketchUp is meant to be a general purpose modeler -- then alot of work needs to be done before it can compete on equal footing.

Best,
Jason.

Compared to what? Most of the modelers I've used currently have as good if not better usability/speed than SketchUp, and the UI are leagues better.

If you want to see an example of what a better UI should/could look like for SketchUp, look at Layout (probably the best thing about Pro) -- Sketchup is in dire need of a UI update, even by the standard of itself.

Sure, If you are just modeling simple stuff, SketchUp gets you started quickly, but as the model becomes more complex things slow down greatly... and if you want to do anything truly advanced, good luck, without resorting to a 3rd party plugin (or, more commonly, a small army of them).

I'm not sure if we are talking apples and oranges here -- I don't give a hoot about drafting packages... I'm talking normal 3D modeling packages. SketchUp is billed as a 3D modeling package (not a drafting package) so that is what I'm comparing it to. It seems alot of others are laboring under the misconception that it is somehow meant to be a drafting application -- which cannot possibly be true without curves/arcs/circles.

SketchUp had great potential in version 6 -- which was slightly refined in version 7... but version 8 was a joke. There's a reason why many Pro version users still have not upgraded -- SketchUp needs to earn their money. IMO that hasn't happened in a long while...

Best,
Jason.

OK, you tell me what exactly SketchUp does better than any other package? Siphoning off of the user-base (via plugin development) is not not something I would give any props to the Sketchup dev team for... if anything they should be ashamed that the (largely unpaid) plugin developers have put them to shame, and this "Pro" modeling software is a joke without the contributions of the user base to prop it up.

My feeling is if I move on from SketchUp as my main modeling package there is nothing outstanding SketchUp brings to the table to bring me back (thus making paying upgrade fees pointless). From my perspective Sketchup doesn't do anything better, and does quite a bit considerably worse -- its most outstanding property is it is free (which is not true in the case of "pro" users).

Enough people take that attitude and the software is dead.

All I ask is that they earn my money... which is only fair.

Best,
Jason.

The previous post is an example of exactly what concerns me most -- advanced users of SketchUp are migrating away from the package because the "top-end" of SketchUp is nowhere near what other professional modeling packages can offer.

This loss of top-end modeling talent (and accompanying passion) helps to solidify the concept that SketchUp is a hobbyist-only package (despite the mislabled "Pro").

A hobbyist package is not going to be very effective for Trimble, which is a professional oriented company... so I can't see the status quo going on for much longer before SketchUp ceases to be commercially viable as a stand-alone package.

Best,
Jason.

You have to give it a file extension (".png", ".jpg", etc.).

Best,
Jason.

Worrying about who gets compensated for what is a fools game -- and so is the free version (for Trimble).

The very best tactic Trimble could pursue is to make the pay versions (since there will be more than one) so much more compelling and useful that nobody would bother using the free version anymore.

Problem solved.

Best,
Jason.

Very cool

I think you should post this on the Maxwell forum too -- it's been a long time since Mike Verta was doing his Star Wars stuff with Maxwell, but most of the "old timers" remember those renders with fondness... I know I do (I really miss Mike).

Best,
Jason.

I know it's a long shot -- which is why I have one foot out of the door already.

One thing I find very puzzling -- if Trimble did in fact buy SketchUp to gain access to its user base for advertising its other products, then it has done a very poor job of it over the last 6 months.

I really have to wonder what value the free version represents to Trimble at all -- If I was an executive at Trimble, I would make finding a way to profit from the free version priority number one. After all, they spent alot of money for this and so far it isn't doing squat for them.

Best,
Jason.

Really? I can name at least 25 indispensable plugins by a wide variety of authors -- most of which are pay solutions.

I'm not saying SketchUp should steal the pay plugins lunch (or even the free plugins)... I'm saying either buy those out or hire the people who made them (as freelance or in-house) to incorporate the best into a proper "pro" modeling package.

The real issue I have with the plugins is the sheer diversity of UI conventions necessary to use them -- if they were all brought under a unified UI philosophy where actions taken would translate well across all modeling functions then everything would be much better for the end user. As it stands now each plugin author has their own unique conventions, which is a real pain.

BTW have you ever paid any attention to the occasional SketchUp screenshot thread around here? About a bazillion icons on every side of Sketchup is typical for most power-users -- this is a joke, and flies directly into the face of the design goals of the SketchUp UI.

Best,
Jason.

That lame argument would hold water if it were not for the massive number of plugins developed to take SketchUp well beyond "simple and small" -- clearly there is a large demand for SketchUp to be other than "simple and small", and only a fool would ignore that demand.

If there are going to be several versions of Pro then there is certainly room for one that is made for this market-share.

Best,
Jason.

I find nothing objectionable about the pricepoint of form.Z ($995) -- if SketchUp were to offer similar functionality in a "Pro" version I would happily pay an equal amount.

I don't think this small amount of money is the issue for most Pro version users -- we can justify the expense if we are making money from it. Over the course of a year there is not much difference between a cost of $500 and $1000... if you are even moderately successful the added functionality would easily pay for itself in better productivity.

However, it is now my belief that Bacus would never allow SketchUp to become that powerful -- he is obsessed with the "less is more" concept (both in UI design and modeling) and resistant to change.

I'll wait and see what comes out when 2013 hits, but my finger is hovering over the purchase button of several competing packages... if I do purchase a competing package you can be sure I won't waste my money upgrading SketchUp Pro.

I know I'm really coming off harsh in these posts -- and I wish I could clearly state my position without doing so... but I have to make it clear I've got one foot out the door, and it will take something exceptional to make me decide to stay. Based on his recent comments in these forums I don't believe John has "exceptional" in the works.

Best,
Jason.

@bob james said:

One mode of advancement would be to do nothing to the free version and put all of the advancements into the pro version with specialty modules (rather than whole versions) that can be purchased separately.

This is what I expect to see -- wasting time on any free version new features is pointless -- as far as I'm concerned any and all new features should only be available via a paid license.

That said, if they don't make the new features substantially compelling enough they may lose both the established Pro users and the free users as well.

I have lost my faith in the SketchUp development process -- it's been so long since they've done anything substantial that I feel like they may have to relearn how to be a dynamic developing team... maybe even new leadership is needed to get back on a track to a "Pro" product.

Best,
Jason.

If you are using the Pro version of the plugin then doing interiors should be easy enough, just make sure you set the engine to "Production" -- the "Draft" engine is really not very good in these situations.

The most important things I can say about interiors are:

1. Use AGS instead of Glass for the windows (my preferred version of AGS is attached).
2. Use IBL (image based lighting) for the sky, the Physical Sky "Sun" is too intense and will compete with the interior emitters creating noise.
3. Use the correct exposure for the interior lighting (usually EV 5-7) and adjust the intensity of the IBL to suit your taste.
4. Try to carefully control the reflective qualities of your materials -- rougher materials generally render quicker.
5. Expect render times to be 3-5 times as long as similar exterior shots -- this is due to the much more complicated light bounces that have to be calculated.
6. If you know there are areas where you are not going see at all, use a "light absorber" material (attached) to reduce the bounces.

Best,
Jason.

AGS Clear.zip

light absorber.zip

In Maxwell Studio this can be done directly per map (one of the many advantages of Studio)

In SketchUp you would need to alter the UV projection size -- do this via the context menu (for the group) under "Maxwell > UV Coordinates > Set Projection Size..."

Smaller values scale the texture larger, larger values scale the texture smaller.

Best,
Jason.

Render nodes can be installed on all your machines in a network, the main machine with the license could be considered one render node by itself (meaning it can render) but it could also be the manager of the other networked computers.

Essentially you can render up to how many licenses you may have (in this instance 1+5) -- this can be used to render 6 different scenes or render 1 scene 6 times faster... or any combination you like.

This is particularly valuable in a large company setting because these renders can be queued up to render overnight while the staff is not using the machines for any other purpose.

A clarification of my last post -- The plugins may not be intended to be usable over several computers, that is just my experience. Meaning I have one license and use both my computers to work. While one machine is rendering I am on the other setting up scenes (SketchUp or otherwise)... It works very well for me.

Best,
Jason.