3D Warehouse's newest features streamline model searches like never before

Thanks for bringing this up, K4teamine. There are a handful of items still on the “to be added” list. It includes related content, updated catalogs, user profiles, brand pages, and more. Many of these are getting updated functionality or backend refinement. Please stand by and feel free to give more feedback as we prioritize the changes, fixes, and updates.

1 Like

Still getting same results today. Just as an FYI…here is the screenshot.


1 Like

could you share with us a couple of problematic photos ? so we can check if they do the same on our side ?

1 Like

Hey Diane! A couple of follow ups.

  1. Yes, can you share a photo that you are trying so we can try the same?
  2. Do you have the same problem if you use your browser to go to https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/
  3. Do you see the same issue whether you’re on your home or your work network?

We’ll get this figured out.

I’ve tried with multiple photos…they all lead to the same results, so pretty sure its not the photos. Have also tried all the allowed formats with the same results.

If I go directly to the warehouse via the web, it works normally.

I have only been doing class prep from home using my academic license. And again, during the test beta stage, it worked as it should.

1 Like

Hello there! The new interface seems to have removed the related models/related collections feature? I would be able to find far better results in those tabs. Is there any way to get it back? It would be much appreciated. Thank you.


Hmmm @TheGuz I think the embedding code has also an issue with the new warehouse

looking at this thread

Capture d’écran 2023-07-27 à 09.53.39

I’m not getting an embedded preview of the model but an embedded mini empty 3DW window ?

Interesting. I notice that a 3DW URL pasted into a message just shows the “Lost Moose” from 3DW and that the actual model will only show if the entire embed code is pasted instead.

Great work updating the 3D Warehouse.

There are plenty of improvements here – thank you!

After some cursory testing, here are two simple and actionable suggestions:

  1. Make search tab “Models” into the default search mode, and move it to the leftmost tab position in the results page

  2. Make search tab “Products” into an optional search parameter, on by default along with non-products, and remove its tab

This will make search easier to understand for all, streamline the search experience, and declutter the UI.

Searching the space of all 3D models is the backbone of 3D Warehouse.

It should not require manual activation. It should not be reached typically after the user has searched and wondered where all the models have gone, only to realise that for reasons untold, the current search will by default funnel all users to see only a fraction of 3D Warehouse’s model contents.

Ever since “Products” were launched, my searches consistently yield more relevant results using the non-default tab “Models”.

To see all model results, users are forced to search twice instead of once to find all models.

This is not how good search should work.

Currently, there are plenty of “Products” that are in fact models (all of them). So why can’t users find these models under “Models”? Confusing.

Currently, there are plenty of “Models” that are in fact some kind of products (thousands of them). So why can’t users find these products under “Products”? Confusing.

Currently, there are many “Products” that depict items which cannot be bought. So why can users find these items under “Products”? Confusing.

A “Product” appears simply to be a model published by an author with the intent of selling something.

Since products are in fact only a subset of all 3D Warehouse models, products should also be presented as such for users. Products could simply to be baked into the default standard model search.

How about it?


I guess you have chosen a bad example here. The “product” in this case is the Medeek wall extension, not the model shown! If people read the text they will understand…

i have been meaning to ask SU to make it easier to find smaller items, previously the smallest you could pick was 1 MB. thankful the number of polygons slider went down to zero, however both were near impossible to slide down to the smallest numbers and 1 MB is still too large. there are people in the world outside of large cities and those people might not have the fastest internet or the latest and greatest energy wasting computers. now the smallest size possible is an order of magnitude larger. plus it is impossible to not choose ‘accept all cookies’ to use the 3d warehouse. explain to me how this is not blatant corporate greed coupled with entitled ignorance?

1 Like

you could fix this by adding a size option to the sort


a Product is simply a model published by a Verified account. Most of them are companies, but if previous times, there were also designers working on behalf of companies. and extension developers.

let’s take an example. Medeek is an extension developer. as such, as far as I understand, he gets the verified status (the √ mark)
If he decides to post a set of ancient roman columns, they appear as products. if he decides to upload an Ikea Billy, it will appear in products. his whole account will.

On the other hand, my account is a standard one. If I were to post a furniture creation that I want to sell, it would appear as a model, until I ask for verification of my account as a commercial one.
Meanwhile, when I upload my epson printer or mac mini, they appear as models.

so yeah, you will find from time to time Products that are actually Models. Usually, they are old, 4-5 years easy, from the former verified system.

And you will find Models that could be Products. Because the people who made and uploaded them don’t have a commercial account, or maybe don’t own the rights to it. I could design all of IKEA’s furnitures, but until IKEA gives me the greenlight, I can’t ask to publish them as Products. I’m not IKEA. I can only do Models.

1 Like

Totally agree with you… the default search of “Products” virtually never results in a meaningful or extensive find! and I always have to re-initiate the search with “Models”. regardless of the semantics of what a product or a model is! Maybe it was a commitment Trimble made to “Verified” accounts that their product search would be prioritised?

As for the search algorithm generally… can someone explain how the text input is parsed as the results I get from a fairly explicit text search are very diverse… ??? eg

the result defy explanation … whats going on?

Could we have a Sort by Poly Count and by File Size options ? these parameters are already shown in the model thumbnail…

PS… that model of the Tardis is amazing

Ooops! the 3d warehouse url is buggy


I think you should use this one.


This feature is certainly not useful when searching similar objects with specific features or materials. This option does not provide related collections which by itself allows discovering an array of possibilities.
By eliminating these features you are limiting options instead of enhancing them.

Please please please bring the feature back… thousands of amazing collections will never be appreciated or used anymore. Was this done on purpose?


you’re sorted by popular.
so it’s most downloaded to least downloaded.

Now if I design a flower pot, and in the name, or in the description, or maybe one of the component inside (??), I type “hexagonal bolt”, and it gets downloaded a million times, you’ll find it here, on top of your search. despite being a flower pot.

It’s SEO 101, can’t really get around, 3dwarehouse, google, same fight.

sorting by relevance had a similar bias. Looking for “table” by relevance, what comes back first is all the models of an account named “Table” THEN actual tables.
(I changed Popularity to relevance in the URL to show you, they removed relevance in the new warehouse but the search option still exists)

popularity sorts by number of downloads files that contain the searched terms.
relevance used to sort by looking at the name of user, then name of file, then I guess description of the file

I don’t see a good way to sort stuff in the 3d warehouse, for a simple reason, we (humans) are morons.
It all resolves around US giving a clear name, clear description, no funny characters, no typos, no cheating account names (looking at you Table)…

Both old and current system make a lot of models invisible to general searches (like table or couch), you’ll get the stuff everyone gets, or you’ll have to dig and add adjectives, details. Or use the brand new search by image that solves a lot of these issues, no need to try to describe anymore.

and it would be so much more useful than sorting by user’s name or file’s name.
right now, the sorting algorithm gives me a mix of all the non-latin names (japanese, chinese, cyrillic) then latin characters.

sorting by weight or polycount would be way more useful


Hello there! Any hints as to what those reasons are? :stuck_out_tongue:

I was going to try out the Image Search feature but, to be completely honest, I didn’t feel like getting a subscription just to try a feature that I don’t expect I’ll be using. I’m not looking for specific products or things that I have real-life photos of. I am simply missing yielding relevant search results for models with seach terms such as “table lamp”, “PVC piping”, “dining chair leather” or “perennial plant”. So it would only be more complicated to have to find good images of examples of these on Google Images first - I just want to find what is actually available on 3D Warehouse.

Again: my search workflow was completely fine before you took the “sort by relevance” and related models/collections features away. I had already tried sorting by popularity a few times, and the result can not replace “relevance”, as we all are now aware. Really hoping you reconsider and will add some of the features back which worked perfectly before.

Thank you sincerely for your time and all the good work!

1 Like

since you’re using the web version,

do your search. re-select popularity
look at the URL. where it’s written “popularity” type “relevance” instead.

Capture d’écran 2023-07-29 à 12.56.53

Maybe they’ll put it back, maybe not, but for the time being, the old sorting solution still exists