@deadtaco said:

There were so many things requested in the 2018 wish list forum post on the Sketchup forums. Did they even look at it?

I'm lead to believe they couldn't as Make was standing in the way.

LOL

Now seriously. Sketchup 8 is still free to use commercially. Make 2017 will be free to use for several years for hobbyists (though it's used by pros too, and that's the reality). Sketchup Free will keep being around and developed. Eventually it will get extensions too.

Let the focus be on Pro.

I'm an architect by the way. Layout is a main part of what I do. It's getting better by the year.

I also see better plugins every year and most of them solve most things being said here. These happen, I believe, due to a lot of work on the API side.

Lumion 8 VS Vray?

https://forum.lumion.com/gallery-best-works/lumion-8-vs-vray-sketchup/

@ben ritter said:

So for maintain maintenance and support, you still have to pay for major upgrades?

If you pay your yearly maintenance and support fee you are entitled to all the major upgrades Sketchup releases as well as any maintenance release in the meantime.

I'd really hate Sketchup to be turned into a subscription.

You've simplified the hole's geometry to a plane. That simplifies everything but doesn't bend the shape as it should. So there's no actual aproximation to what it is in reality and in my opinion doesn't solve the true issue in discussion.

However if it fits your objectives it's a perfect solution and congratulations are in order.

Even so, you could try this plugin here:

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=61363

I think Eneroth had something like that.

@past tense of draw said:

I'm also hearing a lot of comments regarding 'standard construction', and how BIM software (including PlusSpec) are more suited to this standard/simple construction types. The problem with all other Parametric 3D BIM software is that they are simply super-charged Drafting boards (and can struggle with custom shapes). They are also not focused around ‘design’. But that’s why PlusSpec is inside of SketchUp.
The best of parametric BIM tools (PlusSpec) and 3D sketching tools (SketchUp) = The Ultimate Design Tool! It's a level of freedom/flexibility that Revit, ArchiCAD and all the rest can only dream of.

There are some custom shapes, or super bespoke items that are better off being drawn with SketchUp. Hell - that's SketchUp's power. But even in very custom projects, you would still be doing at least 80-90% of a project with the PlusSpec tools. And the small amount that you use SketchUp for, you can BIM with the PlusSpec BIM tool - which, allows you to add information, organize/layer and quantify these custom objects.

Hope this helps.

Hi Drew,

I'm worried about custom. I'm not thinking custom as a detail or part of the building where you can afford designing it in Sketchup and specifically worry about it as something out of scope of the rest of the workflow, that you can use the Plusspec BIM tool and assign some attributes to that thing.

What if a building derives from a custom shape and not vertical walls and horizontal slabs?

What if all the walls of a building are of varying thicknesses from start to end?

What if construction methodology is not about wooden structures but other structures like concrete or masonry?

What if a roof isn't as the examples you show, but it's a concrete slab instead with a lot of insulation and waterproofing details or an horizontal green roof?

I haven't seen examples of those kind of buildings in your tutorials and I'm certainly not going to build as the buildings I see on your typical examples and that's why I can't justify Plusspec.

I know that with Revit I can model a mass study in either Revit and Sketchup and have it's surfaces converted into building elements automatically. I can work on them using certain parametric features (I haven't dealt with Revit for long so I don't know how well this as developed so far). In your case it seems that I would need to use the BIM tool and design those elements without parametrics and then use the PS tools for secondary stuff.

For people like me who don't deal with that kind of standard construction methodology you show at the site, who work well with sketchup and who would eventually choose a BIM package for more complex projects, Plusspec doesn't seem to fit.

Maybe it's a problem of the software's objective that doesn't fit mine, maybe it's only a marketing issue where the examples shown are not what I'm looking for. If the later is true then why not show us examples on how to achieve these kind of projects. I'd be happy with seeing how you achieved the Ronchamp model in the site, and how much of it is parametric and how those parametric walls deal with the custom roof, or how those parametric windows that have custom angled openings are worked.

What I imagine is that is built with Sketchup tools and you use the PS tool to create attributes on it, but that's exactly what I do right now too but I'd be very happy to read it's not.

Best regards, sorry for insisting and thanks for your patience. It's just that I know that I will need to transition to BIM eventually in the future and I'm trying to figure out which are my best options.

Yes... it's price is too good to be true :S

Recently came across this teaser video for Lumion 8, and I think it looks really good as both lighting, vegetation and materials do look very realistic.

If this is with heavy post pro I can't tell, but comparing to what I've seen from Unreal Engine based Twinmotion 2017, this looks way better.

https://lumion.com/what-s-new.html#teaser

How can it be good for estimate and not for construction. The idea of an estimate is to predict, with maximum accuracy possible what the construction will cost. In here it's common practice to have an as closed as possible project before a final estimate is done. We are legally liable if our projects quantities get past a margin of admissible error. So, an estimate, may have an innacurate price as that varies depending of chosen contractor, but not an innacurate structural design as that is what is the basis for the contract that the contractor will have to comply with.

What it feels to me is that plusspec works very well in a lot of scenarios exactly because it deals with standardized construction methods. I was under the impression theses bim constructions would automatically comply to regulations and therefore would require nothing else.

That's not how we work here so, of course, I might have missed the whole point.

You texture a model, then render soft shadows and lights and other effects that sketchup can't output nativelly with a renderer. These effects affect the surfaces where materials are applied. These materials have original textures and the renderer replaces these textures by other textures with the effects "painted" on them.

Can you share your model or show your example better?

Labour of love! Thank you for sharing!

@boofredlay said:

Here you go but as you can see, the edges will never taper properly to a point. The repeating pattern is destroyed each time. I think the method I used originally works much better, slower but more accurate.

I'm sure you're right, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

@maclee said:

Well I am making progress but still issues that seem a bit too complicated for me to figure out. Maybe I need a more simple pattern.

I'd say you need a simpler section of that pattern. What you could do is probably make a section of half the pattern and then mirror it, create a section component and polar array it with the rotate tool.

@boofredlay said:

@jql said:

Check the following gif.

This is great JQL however when you have to trim the edges because of the overlap the original pattern is destroyed. I have been struggling with the right angle to make the shape "wedge" to a point so no trimming is necessary.

Share your model at the same stage boofredlay, I'm sure there is a solution.

Check the following gif.

@ntxdave said:

@jql said:

I used shape bender using the arc of rhe pie.

I have used Shape Bender many times but not sure I fully get this part. Fully comprehend doing the curve to obtain the shape of the vessel but do not fully comprehend how to perform the taper.

The trick with shape bender is that the edge that is parallel with the component, must be in the vertical projection of the component's X axis. Then you can control the final result precisely like this (click the gif):

@maclee said:

When I bend my shape many of my petal cutouts get messed up, do you think it could be because I am working in real scale and I should start larger and then shrink it down? Yours stayed so perfect!

My real scale is bottom c=22cm top c=64cm height 24cm

That should be the issue. Try scaling it up by 10 and then 10 again until Shape Bender doesn't cause issues.

I used shape bender using the arc of rhe pie.

In the end there's cleaning up to do to reach the last step as shape bender wasn't able to compress the bottom center part to an edge.

I believe so glro... It all seems so standard...