Bitterly, bitterly disappointed by this anaemic version of the old Make


with the “vector-based data exchange formats” (= CAD formats as well as 3D formats) already mentioned as an important asset of the Pro version above, I doubt that all other functionality of your elaborated description are the key “neccessities” for many users, especially not all of them at the same time and with the same importance… otherwise Make wouldn’t be used in a ‘professional context’ that often… and imagine the value of a SU version without modeling tools or without extensions.

With the price range of roughly 50 to 100 bucks for a commercial Make version proposed by many users in several posts already, I still don’t agree that the removed fuctionality described above rectifies a price discount of ~80-90%.


The last SU version less demanding concerning the OpenGL requirements of the graphics card resp. driver was version 2016.

SU v2016 also allows to disable to render the display output (and raster exports as well as prints) on the GPU of the graphics card by disabling “Window > Preferences > OpenGL > Use Hardware Acceleration”. Which helps to workaround OGL issues of the graphics card driver… with decreased display output speed of course.


This behavior is actually one of the reasons why groups (and components) exist - to isolate geometry. It is exactly what I would expect!

As others have already expressed, you can associate your dimensions with a different layer than the geometry that anchors them - all within a group or component, thus allowing you to “hide them as a group” (using “group” in the NON SketchUp sense) by turning off the layer’s visibility.


And charge a license fee similar to the “professionally-oriented product”?


Now there we are on completely the same page. Quite right! That is never going to fly. I have never suggested any price. That is Trimble’s call. I am completely unqualified to make a suggestion. All I have suggested is that if Make were to continue as a Sketchup Lite then it could carry a price relative to how much of Pro is disabled within it. Clearly it has to be a price that makes it worthwhile for Trimble to provide it but attractive enough for the advanced amateur home user want to pay it.

As to how you assess the importance of the extra facilities offered in Pro that is something on which we can simply agree to disagree. As you point out it’s different for different users.


Sketchup is at an interesting intersection, isn’t it? You’ve got all-out professionals using is who want that top-level functionality. You’ve got people using it for various levels of commercial work, everything from drawing up a $200 chair for a neighbor, to the architect designing an office building. Millions of commercial people who hijacked a free app and ignored the “for noncommercial use” agreement, and who don’t want their freebie yanked out from under them. And a product that was owned for years by a company with so much cash that they could afford to play around with a 3D modeling app just for fun and charge few bucks for it and so what…which has now been purchased by a more normal company that sees it as a product that needs to produce a revenue stream, and is making moves in that direction. It will be interesting to see where Trimble takes this product.


Yes, I’ve grouped dimensions into a group to show/hide them in different scenes.


I like the Pro-Shop-Free setup…as long as the Free is local and works fast, and is full-featured as far as actual modelling.


Withdrawal symptoms from the product being developed by a company that didn’t need it, and apparently kind of played around with it as a developmental app for a number of years (Google). Yes, I too want a professional-quality modeling tool for free or for $600 permanent license. It will be interesting to see if Trimble continues to want to be “generous” with it. From that market analysis they sent out a while ago, I think they are testing the waters to find out how much the market will bear. Which I totally get. They need to give their stockholders a good return on investment.


Yes, I had to get a new computer due to video card incompatibility between SU 2017 and the Intel HD 4000 video card running on the latest update of Windows 10.


I’m not talking about show/hide dimensions. I’m talking about the ability to customize them fully as far as their location. I probably am ignorant of the finer points of what all can be done with dimensions, although I have worked with the various ways of displaying them. But when I do a dimension in OnShape, I can grab it an move it to exactly how I need it, way easier than Sketchup. And as I zoom in and out, the drawing is much more readable.


What exactly are the advantages of a solid solid over a SketchUp solid? Is it important to position yourself inside where there’s supposed to be material?
With some minor changes to how SketchUp handles its solids (see(*)) you wouldn’t know the difference.

() Only front faces on the outside.
) The ability to assign a material (not meaning texture to faces as in painting) to components that will be applied as hatches or material fill if the component is a SketchUp solid.

So you would have three options when looking at a solid:
_ seeing its (textured) faces
_ seeing its textured faces and the material it consists of when cut, thus just like a solid solid
_ or as above but with no fill, allowing you to look inside


Off-topic from the point of this thread but as I understand things, putting dimensions into their own group or component disassociates them from whatever geometry they may have been created from. Instead of groping them, just assign all the various dimension entities to the appropriate layer directly (if you wish for the dimensions to remain “live”).


Yes, I know what you’re describing. I’m used to doing that all the time as well in PowerCADD. Also, toggling/overriding the automatic arrows inside/outside the witness lines.


Try that in Sketchup…


Close enough?


I’m beginning to think nothing will be close enough


Which could be difficult because a commercial product is automatically treated for commercial use even if the licensee disagrees… sothat it will cannibalize Pro sales significantly e.g. by buying 1 Pro seat for the extended stuff and ‘Lite’ for all other seats switching to the Pro if by demand.

Even if we are pretty on the same page this is probably very unlikely to happen anyhow…


I have a feeling you are probably right. Now I use SK only for personal amusement the full Pro with so much stuff I don’t need in the private context will be a steep price to pay. My difficulty is that, quite apart from my dislike of what I have seen so far, the web version doesn’t even run viably on my machine. It’s desperately slow and dysfunctional despite a solid and fast connection.

Since Make’s continued usability depends on what OS it will continue to run under I suppose that when that day comes dual boot could be a solution when I want to use SK.

Fingers crossed …


or more conveniently Oracles free ‘VirtualBox’.