10x, rather
Revit: $2675/yr
Archicad abiut $6750 perpetual, about $3600/yr
Comparing these to SketchUp is sort of ridiculous. They are, of course, expensive if you don’t need their full potential. What people pay for to use these apps is the integrated multiuser workflow with all documentation auto-syncing and with no need to input the same information into multiple locations, saving time and reducing errors. And, in many cases, it is a client requirement.
If I started the sudden shift towards discussing license cost I must retract any such statement immeadetely (can’t spell that word). Developing things costs money. And there should be any number of ways to spell “imeadetely”. Immidetealy.
OT: imidiätli if vi juus Finis oo Lätin spelin
(old car model collecting cards in coffee and bubblegum packages when i was a small child had pronounciation instructions in this manner. Sprite bottles, when they started selling it here had also a small print instruction that told it was pronounced as “sprait”)
I think I remember reading somewhere that General George S. Patton thought it was good to spell words differently each time you used them for variety sake.
Absolutely!
Given Trimble’s LO improvement track record and pace to date, our best hope is probably releasing the hostage API!
This is an issue I have puzzled about for a long time, WHY doesn’t Trimble appreciate the potential of what they have in SU/LO enough to take it the rest of the way home? WHY can’t they invest enough (especially in LO) to make SU/LO into the industry leading AEC software that it could be? It seems like Trimble either isn’t paying attention, or they have actually decided to just pass on this!
Very True!
My three college summers working as a rough framer and roofing assistant proved invaluable to me later when (hand) drawing construction details. Knowing how materials need to come together is critical to a successful building. Always build it in your mind before you draw it, and then think around the corners! I could never really respect the “designers” in the office who didn’t have any practical construction experience in the field. I appreciated what (good) contractors can do so much, I eventually moved into Construction Administration as a main focus.
Amen.
Fortunately, those professionals are both more flexible and I’m usually the one paying them, so even if I still get complaints, it’s easier to have those DWG files being accepted. Clients and municipalities have way more power over what they need from us. Adaptation from our behalf is always needed and it brings a huge cost and extra delay rebuilding all those DWG files.
Flip along and scale -1 are not a mirror command. Setting up axis and using those tools is also not a mirror command. Those are workflows that can get you there. Workarounds.
@TIG solved the issue, but it’s ridiculous that Sketchup needs it. It doesn’t make me smile when I install the plug-in, I feel embarrassed that I’m using such an unpolished product. I have to sit back, relax, and think on how many things about Sketchup are brilliant.
In Sketchup for the iPad, which I love using btw, there’s no plug-ins and, past a point, it makes no sense modelling with it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder 
… causes me no offense
Hi,
@Sonder, you probably didn’t understand my point. I’m surprised you reacted so sharply.
I’m not saying Sketchup should look like Revit, please no. Revit is slow and unintuitive. I work with it because I have to but I don’t like it. To me they are two different programs, and I’m not here to compare them.
I am here because I love Sketchup, and asking for improvement is not an insult.
What I am saying is that they do have ressources for development at Sketchup, but they seem to be allocated to side programs when Sketchup desktop could use a little push up.
So this is where I disagree with you (or misunderstand you) : the price range shouldn’t be an excuse to slow down the desktop development when money is spent for other things.
Obviously, I don’t deny any development comes at a cost. What I criticize is priority, but this is just one point of view, and in the end, only Sketchup team will decide
Just another thing, please don’t be condescending with “come to basecamp I’ll show you how” and flipping advices (which is not mirroring, as JQL said) when you don’t know me or how I use Sketchup. I am not asking for help here, just giving my point of view and I am sure you can use better arguments than “I know better than you”. I’m happy to learn from others, but not this way.
This is a great model and presentation! Congrats.
In what relates to these ever changing Sketchup + Layout presentations examples, this doesn’t seem like brilliant building design but it’s a great presentation. Not that the presentation looks very good, but it’s very effective at diverting very well from the design. A lot of stuff happening there.
Presentation wise, Sketchup is able to return the best looking drawings I’ve seen, where you can still make them look as technical as you wish, with the easiest workflow directly from the software. If you want to push them even further with an image editor or even vector design editor, you can easily do it. This is another reason, besides being a great design tool, why the SU+LO package is so great.
I work for the UK +Ireland distributor of SketchUp - training and supporting Trimble’s enterprise users with SketchUp , Layout + other renderers and plugins.
Even silly to compare with AutoCAD at $1,865/yr. It comes with things SU doesn’t. Like native architectural tools (wall styles, door and window tools, schedule tools etc) Included MEP (HVAC), Electrical, Mechanical, Plant (PI&D), Raster and Map (GIS).
Also I agree, it’s silly to compare SU to full BIM tools as SU is no where close to BIM. I closer comparison might be to the Revit LT Suite @ $605/yr. Double the price for BIM tools with AutoCAD LT drafting.
For simple residential scale BIM, Chief Architect is a better comparison, though I have no experience with it. For general modeling (not BIM), Blender gets mentioned a lot here, but Form•Z and Rhino are more appropriate comparisons for architecture, woodworking etc.
I agree with Form Z being a better comparison. They have continued to update their free desktop version AND it can be used for any purpose what so ever.
My apologies if I came across as condescending. My passion in my response is related to people wanting SU and LO to behave or work like other CAD programs that are not comparable in any way. I’ve stated this since the first SU video I did back in 2011.
SketchUp is different. It always has been. Rather than look at something like “flip along” and “-1” with scale as not being mirror commands, ask why a mirror command is needed or rather, why doesn’t ACAd have 2 options that are more flexible like SU.
Flip along is a single click menu operation. Scale requires one extra click and entering “-1”. Do we really need a third way? Development money is better spent elsewhere. The team has a broad user base that reflects the original tenet of SketchUp. That is obviously considered with development.
My comments on basecamp are sincere. I have been very open in sharing my process for more than a decade. I do this because I’ve found it to be an eye opener on what a sole practitioner can achieve to compete with larger firms. I don’t make my money teaching and from books. I make my living from architecture, keeping pace with the larger firms in my area, while having far less expenses since it’s just me. My goal is to show more people in the field that it can be done simply using SU and LO. There is no better venue for this than live at 3D Basecamp.
Form Z is pretty cool, but even their pro version is still a modeling program so more comparable with the “non-Pro” versions of SU.
It seems most of us do. Two words: diagonals and inferences.
But this mirror discussion is missing the original point that SketchUp misses some basic tools and that SketchUp team spreads it’s time developing a lot of diverse innovations that don’t really add that much value to the whole eco system while the main app keeps falling behind in a lot of pain points.
Development tends to keep spreading out into a wider and wider realm of apps and sites, while many fundamentals stalled development for years and even decades.
With that development time we could have current functionality working in way higher levels:
I could go on and on, as all or most of these are existing features, some of them work well, but they stopped developing them. They could be much better and empower users in better ways… But they lack investment.
Which circles back to my original statement. People want more development and improvements, then complain about the cost. I’m not pointing a finger at you in particular, but there are many in these forums that want SU to be the gold standard with no subscription fee when they are comparing it to programs that are far more complex and expensive.
Not sure what you mean by mirroring diagonals and inferencing? I’ve never had an issue mirroring something when I needed it. I use both flip along and the scaling method all the time and have many designs with oblique angles with multiple split levels.
Absolutely there is need for improvement (mirroring aside). Although Some of the things you ask for would make SU another program like DataCAD, Revit and 3D ACAD. I think if someone really wants that, then they should splurge for those programs.
What I don’t want as a user is exactly that…for SU to turn into yet another bloated expensive CAD program.