Thanks, I think I read (several locations around the web) although I can't find them right this minute, that it is listed as being 2012 compatible.

Having said that, understand I could be completely in error.

Those of you who might have some issues with SKP need to take a look at the UTUBE videos Nick Sonder has put up recently. His work says it all. From a developer as well as contractors standpoint - he's "nailed" his field. If you can't "build" from his work, then go home and change professions.

In addition, almost every other poster here has had something valuable to say. Do the "traditional (architectural) industry / practitioners" feel threatened, etc? No doubt. Can you imagine what AutoDesk and others have spent?

Having said that: The team of consultants / engineers / developers and builders we work with ? They could give a whit about "what' is used to create the end product. Millions of dollars are in play on these projects - literally (we're very, very lucky to have the work we have and, we try to appreciate it with frank, "humbleness" and, give thanks every single day).

In our work team, all manor programs are used, interfaced, etc. AutoCad does some great things and, quite quickly in the hands of talented (note "talented") user. Same for SolidWorks and several other programs mentioned. Frankly, it's all about the job and clear communications to the "end user" - be it design engineer, structural engineer, MEP folks, the client or whomever. We've never had a client with a seven-or-eight figure project say "how did you come up with that image or make those drawings?" They're busy, they want visuals, and most want them NOW. We've found that SKP delivers.

Too, we've received a number of project files from the "biggest and the (supposedly) best in the business). What we've had come across the threshold is truly, in some instances, unbelievably bad.

Remember: It's not the tool, it's the operator. Never forget that. If you're client has a problem with how you dig the ditch, hand him the shovel. Better yet, (if you can afford it) pass on that client; we've almost always found that, that type of client is trouble down the road. As for "balky" consultants that have too many "opinions." I flat out tell them: "they can always find their payslip elsewhere."

Yes, I've used a ton of them and they're quite good - if you're using Max. I've never tried them in SKP as we do our "better" renders in MAX. Our library here has every EVERMOTION scene ever listed. They are great for parts, that sort of thing.

Hummm. . . loaded it into ACA by running the MSI file. Prompts tell me installation complete / successful.

Tried both IMPORTSKP and GETMODEL prompts, but ACA stayed "dumb." I'm useing ACA 2012.

I'll do some snooping and keep trying. This would be something I would use a great deal.

KALLI

I've loaded this into ACA 2012 - yet it seem to "vanish" as nothing is listed in the plugins folder or, can be found with "appload. in ACA. Switching to an Autocad vs. ACA 'profile" in ACA - nothing found then, either.

The MSI file runs, but can't determine what it does.

Any suggestions.

Okay, a long time lurker here with “some” input, but not necessarily insight.

Sketchup has become a large part of our company work-flow, primarily through recommendations to external consultants as a software package and, to some degree, in house. We tried (because of simplicity) to adopt SU to our some of our architectural, design, conceptual design and (various) engineering disciplines. For smaller projects it’s . . . okay (layout oddities accepted - grrr). Compared to other packages out there whose five-figure price tag very rarely obtains “full value use,” Sketchup seemed a boon. The “just get it done” aspect of the software is staggering.

A number of firms that we work with have “discovered” Sketchup’s abilities – in no small part thanks to the wonderful and excellent support plug-ins labored over for hours by creative authors throughout these forums. (Off-the-record: we know many that are using SU, but when their firm has invested hundreds of thousands in software and training, SU’s full “utilization” factor may not be fully in the light).

Having said that: A number of years ago we worked closely with a company developing a rather costly vertical add-on package (this for a company’s product “who shall not be named”). All was great until the smaller, vertical add-on company came to the notice of a much larger company. Purchase was made, all smiles, new HQ, etc. (Sound familiar?)

Within a year all the smaller company’s folks were gone and corporate mentality had taken over. When we called the new corporate types “had no record of that person ever working there.” Ya think? Jeez! They created the damn software, you fools. Six layers to get to anybody; we’ll call you back (uh-huh); could you please provide your credit card number?” For what? We just want to talk to somebody. (Okay, but we’ll have to call you back). We gave up and no longer purchase that software package. And, we never did get that call. Still waiting.

In the interest of partial disclosure the vertical is still operating and, so is “the mother ship.” They’re working hard to revit-up, ah – pardon me – stir up interest.

Let’s hope that Sketchup has not been “trimbled” in a similar fashion. We also have experience with Trimble. Like any corporation they’re bottom-line oriented, but their “bottom line” starts somewhere in the stratosphere – several digits above our normal contracts. When dealing with several of our consultants their comment was “so much for Sketchup.” They have far more experience with the monstrosities than we do. Most are taking a “wait-see-but-we-won’t-hold-our-breath” attitude. All have stated (even those with financial agreements with Trimble) that getting information/assistance out of these folks is like pulling teeth – unless of course you have a seven-figure contract with them.

Let’s all hope it works out for the best; the aforementioned is strictly our unfortunate experience. Give up on Sketchup? No, but we, like several others, have put the mother ship back on our radar.

Thanks guys for all the input. Logical answers I didn't see the other day. Perhaps just staring at the darn thing (and way too many hours at the computer).

As a colleague of mine often states : "the blindingly obvious."

I really do appreciate all the input.

kalli

I need to cut a great many holes in a flat surface approx 1/8 thick.

Is there a way to do this in one shot - "subtract" wants each hole cut individually.

We'll be doing this over and over for mulitple render models.

Any suggestions?

Kalli

Multiple Holes.skp

Hummmm I was sort of hoping that someone might have a script (ruby or otherwise) that would shut the darn thing off.

You're right. It's about 95% crap. I knew that when Google purchased SU, that it would loose some class. I mean, for god's sake, I've now got smiling laughing utterly ridiculous icons dancing on this page. Maybe that's okay if you're modeling for the kiddie sandbox.

It's way I stopped visiting the forums, stopped, just about everything related to Google.

I was sort of expecting that answer, and dreading it. There is, quite frankly, a lot of . . . lets say questionable stuff on the Warehouse. I would think in the pro version, it would be permitted to turn off this crap.

This may be answered elsewhere, but I've been unable to locate.

Is there any way to simply eliminate or turn off that darn 'GOOGLE WAREHOUSE" option from the components menu? It would be nice. There are some "okay" things there, but well . . . we make our own components that actually work, are grouped properly, etc. Always defaulting to this is something I can't figure out how to eliminate.

Thanks in advance.

Trying out version 7 and can tell you we will NOT be moving a number of users to that version unless there is a way to get rid of those darn knots (insertion points?) or WHATEVER they are called they make the most unsightly addition to drawings. When printing there is now WAY to turn these darn things off. They make things look like a cross between crappy extensions and depth cues and profile lines that work only at the corners.

Whose brilliant idea was this? Showed it to the firm, and can say right off the bat that I know of 20+ seats that will NOT be changing because the "powers that be" said - what is that crap???

Any suggestions, or are we missing something here?

Gee we now have the cutisie little emot-i-cons or whatever they are. How sad and how terribly third grade. (hey mom i can put a smile on my drawing but damned if i can upload a sample!!!)