All excellent points and will make for good ammunition, I mean talking points, when I present my findings to my financial advisor/my wife.
Thanks

@caronte01 said:

Tim

I recently moved from a pc to a mac. As someone else pointed before, considering specs, macs are competitive, when compared to a similarly spec´ed peecee.

I work on a macbook, which i upgraded to 2 GB of ram, and find sketchup performance adequate, even with integrated graphics. Take into consideration the fact that a lot of stuff you see on your screen on OSX is opengl accelerated, so apple makes sure performance is ok. I work with hardware acceleration on, and there are no visible glitches (something you more than likely would have on a pecee with integrated graphics), and speed is ok on small and medium to large models. In this case, it´s not just a matter of raw speed, but also good drivers, and the mac certainly does have good ones.

I guess it all depends on the kind and size of models you do. I would be more than happy to have a macbook pro though, but it was out of my budget.

I also use a late gen imac, with ati graphics, and performance is very good, but, strangely i get more graphic glitches than on the macbook. Nothing terrible though.

Certain plugins do work only on peecee, but you have several option on a mac to run windows for those, if you need to.

Your computer is imo too old to run sketchup properly though.

It´s up to you in the end, but if it was my call, i would stick with osx. Not pretending to turn this into a flame war, but if you are used to mac, the switch will be full of surprises, and not all of them will be good.

The peecee has more variety, software wise, i agree, but most freeware, shareware, low cost programs on a mac are imo of a higher quality than equivalents on peecee.

Glenn,

I can’t remember the exact specs on my G4 but I do remember I maxed out the RAM a few years ago. His concern was the same as your’s it probably isn’t worth the headaches. Oh well, I’d rather know this than attempt a futile upgrade.

Thanks

@unknownuser said:

I'd have to agree with him. What is the ram in a G4 450, PC-100? Does this one even have an AGP video card? Sure OSX will run on it but why do it?
Looking at http://www.everymac.com I see that these could have a 2X AGP slot and they did have a 100mhz system bus speed. Looks like a mini would be a faster machine that these in OSX. I got rid of my old PowerMac6500 for this reason. Not worth the upgrade headaches

301 Moved Permanently

(www.everymac.com)

Currently I have a G4 450 MHz running on OS 9. It has been and still is an excellent machine. I have had it for 8 plus years. Of course I can't run SU on it unless I upgrade to OS 10. One of our IT guys at the office advised against it saying I would be better off in the long run with a new computer. What I don't know is if OS 10 would work on my current computer or not. Is anyone running SU on a computer like this? Maybe there is hope in an upgrade.

I will compare both platforms. Thanks for the advice.
Tim

@kmead said:

Be sure and compare the same specs on the PC as on the Mac, the Macs are much more cost competitive than you might think. The biggest issue I have with Macs is that they don't have a mid line box with an upgradeable video card available at the moment. I am toddering on with my 7 year old Mac tower which has been doing surprisingly well. My MacBook Pro is more than adequate and can go where I go.

If they offered a midline tower with an upgradeable graphics card, I would drop my 1800 tomorrow to buy it.

I don't often see graphics glitches on any mac, I see more on my bosses MSW box but so it goes.

Keep in mind that buying the memory after market is much better than buying it from Apple (or Dell for that matter) cost wise.

Mike,

I would prefer to stay with the Mac but I need a contingency plan in case the finances don’t allow a new one. I know a PC is in the budget. I’m crossing my fingers.

Tim

@mike lucey said:

Hi Tim,

I'm not sure what you are doing but I run both versions of SU
on my MacBookPro. The Win version is run via Parallels 3.

The reason for using the Win version on Parallels 3 is because
I'm using Podium. It's not the quickest but does the job.

When I switched to the Mac and started to get to grips with Mac
SU it took a little while to get used to some of the key stokes.
But again I was also getting used to the Mac way of things at
the same time.

I think your learning curve will be with the PC Win more that
SketchUp itself!

If you are going for a Win Laptop I agree that Dell is a good
bet as their backup (in my experience) is quite good. But again
I can't understand why you are taking this route

Mike

Thanks Norbert, I’ll check this out too. It appears the nVidia cards are preferred by the SU community.
Tim

@sketch3d.de said:

the OpenGL support of PC based 3D graphics accelerators is, because of the long experience the manufacturers do have with this platform, more mature and stable than on the Macitnosh side. Therefore OpenGL based issues regularly mentioned in connection w/ OSX driven systems are much less occuring especially in connection with the nVidia Quadro CAx series of video cards.

If you can afford it, the e.g. Dell Precision workstation notebooks with a Quadro GPU are probably the best choice for running SU on a mobile system yet. Because single core speed is more relevant for SU than multiple but currently unused cores (by SU), focusing on the fastest dual core is recommendable.

hth,
Norbert

I will check the options and article out. Thanks to all. I really appreciate the input and the expertise. This forum is really a great resource and community.

Thanks,
Tim

Yes, thanks.

@remus said:

Some lower end laptops dont come with a graphics card, instead they have a chip on the motherboard which does all the graphics. This means that less computing power goes towards graphics than if you had a graphics card, as the card is more powerful than the integrated graphics chip.

Hope that makes sense.

Thank you Remus. Excuse my ignorance but I didn't understand the graphics card for a laptop suggestion.
Tim

@remus said:

Dual core processor at about 2 GHZ, higher is better when it comes to clock speed.
A couple of gigabytes of RAM, again more is better if you can afford it.
A decent graphics card, Nvidia quadro if you can afford it, if not any nVidia card from around 6600 upwards.

If you do end up getting a laptop, be extra careful that it comes with a graphics card as integrated graphisc=crap SU performance.

BTW, what kind of specs should I look for a PC running SU? I guess I could consider a laptop too.
Thanks,
Tim

Thanks for the observations. I have always used a Mac and love it. There is a lack of familiarity with the PC which is a concern but if SU works about the same on both platforms,I think I could swing it. In the end, it will probably come down to which one I can afford.

Thanks,
Tim

@bigstick said:

I switched the other way - PC to Mac and until the latest version, I would have said that the PC version is way better. Until the latest update the Mac version was truly awful, but now I think things are more or less the same. I switch between versions daily.

I think generally, once you tweak a PC and get used to it, you can be more productive. The Mac is more creative though I think, but you also need quite a few utilities to become improve usability. Also there are no stupid nagging messages, viruses or spyware. I am a recent Mac convert. I use a PC in the office and am responsible for managing 60. I have a PC and Mac at home, but I prefer the Mac.

I am considering switching to the PC version of SU from the Mac. Not because I don't love the Mac but an upgrade on my Mac is imminent and financial considerations are weighing heavily in the decision/purchasing process. Also, there are some PC only plugins that I would like to begin using.

My question is not whether Mac is better than the PC or vice versa. But rather I would like to know from any cross-over users how much difference there is between the two versions. I have been using the PC mouse so that won't be an issue.

Thanks,
Tim

You are correct Dylan it was Dennis Fukai. I liked how he used SU in mitigation. This seems to be an area that hasn’t been tapped into much. I was wondering if other users were exploring this too.

Thanks,
Tim

@unknownuser said:

If I remember correctly Tim, it was Dennis Fukai who had carried out a lot of work in this area and posted some of his own experiences.

He does not appear to have registered at the forum.

He can be contacted via his website Insitebuilders.
http://insitebuilders.com/

This is a topic that I am interested in and one that I had asked about some time ago. I believe that the posts to this topic were lost when there were some technical issues with the site.

Anyway, I would like to revive this topic and see if others are using SU in this way. I do remember one user who replied to me and his application of SU to mitigation work was very intriguing.

Thanks in advance.
Tim

Thanks for all of the good suggestions/comments. I have used a few ruby scripts but for nothing like what has been suggested. It's good to know SU can accomplish this task, however I might choose. I haven't had a call for models like this. I'll need to find some tutorials on curved faces and using ruby scripts.

Thanks again.
Tim

This helps. I really couldn’t assess modeling time given the curves. Would you model this in SU? If so, that is an aspect of SU that I haven’t explored yet but would definitely look into. I do prefer to create my own models. It can eliminate confusion and headaches. I’m thinking the final use of this model is not for any kind of high-end work. My solution might be sufficient. I’ll see what the client says.

Thanks again.
Tim

@unknownuser said:

There are others that have more authority than I on this but I have some observations.

Deciding whether to build from scratch would depend on your ability and the requirements of the final output. If this object was going to be the focus of the final proofs than detail would be important and so of course the time on it would mount. If it needed to be rendered to photo realistic quality then building would take longer than an hour...I estimate that I could build that baby in about 3 good focused hours. So based on your experience we have lost time. But, back to final output...if I need to prepare this model for rendering I would want to have better control over its surfaces and I would want to make sure my modeling is not creating any strange apparations in the render that can not be isolated and fixed.

This is where your conversion of the original could fail you. I believe that you need another hour or two to set up your model...there is still clean up work and depending how perfect it needs to be and the number of angles it is shot from there could be a number of poly's to remove reshape...etc..etc...etc.

If it had been my choice, I would have started from scratch....I say this because I have played with your model and as I say it is just too painful for me. I would end up spending hours with it trying to make it perfect. I find that a very frustrating exercise.

As you get better at modeling you develope a bit of a stuffy attitude towards wire frame creations by others ...there is always a way to do it better but that in itself is a deep pit to fall into. Spending hours over another persons work is a learning exercise you don't need after a time.

I do think that it is necessary as you learn to do just what you have done. It is a fast way to introduce yourself to some very difficult problems and always the solutions you find can be applied in your future work.

Thanks. I am attaching the before model. And by that I mean before I smoothed and softened the edges. Select the model and right click. Then you will see the soften/smooth edges option. When you see that window, check both the Smooth normals and Soften coplanar options. Move the slider and you can control the level of detail. The facet lines will disappear.

As I said, this took me under an hour to do and I’m sure I can go faster now that I know what to do. But I really don’t know if it would be faster to start from scratch and I am not familiar with building curved models like this. File size still might be an issue. Hopefully, someone with more experience with this type of model will chime in. For now, I have solution. Maybe there is a better way.

Tim

@prss said:

Wow! What you have got from that CAD model is really good.
I wonder if it has been worthwhile of your time to convert
it from CAD rather than starting fresh in SU. I have just posted
a new topic (to be solved) regarding curved surfaces imported
from AutoCAD solid model.

Your SKP model shows smooth curved surface. How did you get that?
That should solve my problem!(I appreciate your patience).

Thanks in advance
With best regards
PRSS

appliance_facets.skp

Thanks, I should get some feedback from the client later today. Does the time frame to edit the model they supplied seem reasonable as compared to modeling from scratch? I spent less than an hour with it. Excuse my ignorance but I haven’t modeled any curved surfaces like these and I’m not sure how well SU can do it.

Thanks,
Tim

@unknownuser said:

Looks like you got it...nice job!!...the model (they gave you) is an absolute pig to work with though so I admire your patience with it.

Attached is my attempt at a hybrid model of sorts. I edited the component and gutted everything except the front panel and added a box. Then to get rid of the facets, I smoothed and softened the edges. It actually didn’t take long to do. I got the file size down from 1.4 MB to 832 KB. There are a few hiccups but at least it wasn’t a complete re-do. I’m still not sure if the file size is too big but it is smaller than before.

The client is looking for a model comparable to the cad model so the detail needs to be there. And they want a SketchUp model. I’m not sure how long it should take to start from scratch given the level of detail required and the compound curves in the face of the appliance. I was able to gut the original model in under an hour.

Any additional thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tim

appliance.skp

Thanks again for all of the feedback. I'm not sure exactly how the model was initially created. I am writing this while attempting to get something out of the model. I created a single plane and placed it at the midpoint of the model and am intersecting the plane with the model to try and get a cross section that I can push pull. Maybe this will give me a chassis that I can embellish further.

Cross your fingers.
Tim

Bob,

I'll try dissecting the model into components. I am trying to balance using what has already been produced and starting over. At the very least, I know I will need to use the cad model for reference. Let me play with it a little more. Thanks for the recommendation.

Tim