Can Sketchup keep up?

[lt72884]

i agree with you on this . i think ONE thingn sketchup could do to keep up is add some more basic tools in the free version. I belong to a LOT of 3d printing groups and aerospace groups since i am a medical and aerospace engineer. People that use the free version of sketchup, leave almost with in the first week because it is missing some very very basic tools that other free software have such as doing splines, basic Boolean operations, and lofting. even if the sketcup web offered at least a way to spline and loft, that solves A LOT of issues. we can still use intersect faces for basic stuff.

but with design spark mechanical thats free, f360, and what not, it makes users not really want to deal with sketchup web.

even trimbles landing page states that sketchup web is ideal for 3d printing, but yet lacks some major basic features that us 3d printer people need. I use splines and lofting constantly to make engineering prototype for personal use, and home project parts.

try designing a basic dust mask or foot for a cnc machine without splines and lofting… its pretty dang hard.

[pbacot]

Thanks for the rundown. I’ll check these out though I don’t have a problem using TIG’s mirror tool.

[RTCool]

@PaulMcAlenan

I don’t see the problem with installing a plugin to mirror - how might a native tool make the operation better…?

That was a strong argument until 2017. Now, not only are there three versions of web based SketchUp, but now there’s SketchUp for iPad, and none of them can use plugins. Those versions are now begging the question of what basic plugins aught to be folded into the base program so all versions have that same functionality. Export to STL used to be a plugin until SketchUp for Schools came out in 2017. In order for teachers to do 3D printing in the classroom as they can with Tinker CAD, that needed to become a native feature.

[maxwolfesu]

@fxcutting

Not to mention it take less than half the time to g

Your tutorials and book (Nick Sonder) have helped me tremendously in downsizing my Firm to a sole proprietorship (with consulting Architects on standby) - I look forward to meeting you in person at 3D Basecamp.

Working part time throughout college and full time in summers as a laborer, plumber, carpenter, etc. not only taught me to “see” details, but ensured me of getting a job in a very slow market in the mid 1970’s (yes, I am a little more experienced:)). In addition, I made more than double the money of my friends working at McDonalds.

[Wo3Dan]

Not taking sides here when it comes to how to mirror with native tools (whether scaling -1 or flipping along an axis) or using a plugin. But accurately using the scale tool is quite simple.

You need:

• a selection to be mirrored and its copy to clipboard
• a mirror represented by a guide (location and direction set as desired)
• change the axes, one along the guide
• add / include the guide in the selection
• apply ‘Scale’ = -1
• paste previous selection in place

example: simplified door mirrored 100° (in red)

[Sonder]

See you there!

[Eqc]

Awesome trick!

[Eqc]

Thank you for your reply,

We agree Sketchup should remain simple, and just like you I like to work fast.

I also love that we can make it custom according to your needs, thanks to plugins. I still can’t believe how wide is the audience and why people are complaining about things I barely use!
So which tools to improve or add is indeed an interesting question.

I am curious what would you like to be improved in Sketchup?

[paddyclown]

I am perplexed to say the least: so folks are you now all saying that basically SU is fine as it is ? Are we just supposed to say amen and whistle while we work in this wonderful world ? Seriously ?
@JQL amongst others has flagged up some serious points and what we get back is a rabbit-hole about mirror vs flip-scale -1 ?
Can we agree to disagree on that particular point and get back on track please ?
Actually @JQL pretty much covered the list of points that I also wish the Trimble SU team would address instead of creating endless different platform versions of SU that all half-work since not all of them can be saved by the wonderful dedicated people who write the plugins that fill some of the holes in the base product.
But heh, if all is just hunky dory, well, zippedy dooh dah, have a lovely self congratulatory boot-camp and ignore architectural professional users concerns for yet another year, who cares anyway, right ?

[Eqc]

Hi @paddyclown,

You’re over reacting
I’ve explained earlier my point of view on how Sketchup actually needs improvement to me (I actually mentioned the mirror, one of the « missing tool »), but the question is it’s not that easy considering the wide audience Sketchup has. My basic tools are not yours, and nobody (I guess?) wants Sketchup to become 3dsmax nor Revit. It has to keep its unique vibe while evolving at the same time.
Big subject!

[paddyclown]

You are quite right, nobody wants SU to become one or other of the mammouths that you mention… 'cos if you want to have a mammouth, you can always stump up the zillions of $ to use them. However, even if we are diverse in our needs from SU, it certainly appears that many of us are getting pretty tired of waiting for some “almost there” things to finally be 100% operational. Proper IFC export is one of them; I mean, why make an option, & then not have it work properly for years and years ? Especially given that Trimble is perfectly capable of doing that I’m sure… so why not just do it ? There are plenty more in the list that @JQL flagged that are of the same ilk, stuff that is halfway, or more, there & just needs finishing. Even if you are not doing architecture, if you use Layout, I’d be very surprised if you say it’s fine and lovely and does all that you need smoothly and efficiently… If so, great, but for many of us (reading different threads over the years I know I’m not alone) LO is a huge source of frustration and we just wish Trimble would prioritize making it finally into the great tool that it is obviously trying to be.
Another issue not specifically for architects, but for anyone who has to communicate via .dwg files, is their huge insufficiency when exported from SU… another case of “almost”, but not quite.
The problem is we’ve been saying a lot of this for years and we get no feedback from the corporate powers that be as to if & when any of this will ever get addressed, hence a huge sense of deception and anger as, to come back to your point, we don’t want Revit or 3dMax, but what will we do when in our world, and yes here I’m talking as an architect, we can no longer keep up and provide the files that increasingly our clients and partners are asking of us… we will be able to “fudge” only for so long, and time is running out as the industry creaks towards more and more integrated working practices. So, if Trimble has no intention of ever getting fully there, then ■■■■ well tell us straight, & we’ll go away and, with a heavy heart, go learn something else that allows us to “keep up”… is that what they want ?

[Odd_Haakon_Byberg]

IFC:

• ifc models made by Tekla (Trimble software) always crashes on import on Mac.
• imports where the file is around 2Mb can balloon to about 40 Mb
• I find that the engineers can export ifc´s with reference lines, and dimensions. That is not possible in sketchup.
• Export natively mostly produces empty files, but as we have a very good exporter plugin thats really no issue. (IFC Manager)
• Other software are able to export with floor numbering and floor heights, and I guess, set that up for the model so it does not have to be repeated for every export.

Maybe it´s best to remove features that doesn’t work, as nobody wants bloat.

[JQL]

Autodesk is the industry standard, no matter how stupid it is. If we want to be able to use another tool, we still have to comply with the standard or be off the market. My main gripe with this is DWG exports from Layout: having to stack viewports for each layer of a floor plan that I need in DWG export is a very painful workflow/workaround. It makes no sense especially because the model already has the layer info embedded and it would be only a matter of reading it. Just as Skalp does when you export from SU but doing it from Layout.

If the objective is different, and the idea is that Sketchup imposes itself as a new or alternative standard, then it must fully work and fulfil all architectural needs. That is also not the case.

So Sketchup users are mostly architects, and an architectural workflow is already fully possible with it, it also opens a lot of new possibilities, but huge sacrifices have to be made so we can take advantage of its brilliant capabilities, minor improvements to SU would make these sacrifices almost non existent, the problems have been identified by us users for decades now, still they are not being addressed, while development is focused on things that are not being widely adopted by all users…

This is a no brainer to me: fix those minor issues first, in order to make an outstanding product for architecture, addressing your widest user base possible in a definite way, and then move to whole new capabilities to widen the user base.

This is the strategy that I believe Sketchup needs, in order to take the market with the potential it can, with the highest revenue possible. I’m tired of seeing architects stating that it’s a great fun modelling with Sketchup while everything else fails, when everything else fails only because of a couple of minor things.

What if everyt architect would be able to model with Sketchup and then produce what they need, seamlessly, without headaches? Without reading a book in order to be able to do it? Without having to think ages on how to circumvent basic issues? Without having to bang their head against layout’s shortcomings? And being able to adhere to standards perfectly…

Just fix those minor issues, please…

[paddyclown]

@JQL in a nutshell, thank you for summing it up !
& who knows ? maybe Trimble will finally grow a pair…
of ears.

[Anssi]

@JQL

Autodesk is the industry standard, no matter how stupid it is.

I don’t think this is actually quite true any more. I would say rather that IFC is the industry standard. True, engineers still like to have 2D DWG plans, but the way they are structured is largely irrelevant, as they only form an underlay. Actually they could quite as well be using PDF or image files. But IFC is the format that actual information exchange uses.

[Sonder]

I dont think anyone has stated that. Even I stated there is always room for improvement and growth.

[Sonder]

In SU, I’ve always wanted the scene manager to have groups or folders so you can minimize the scene tabs and easily access scenes.

I want to see an option where reference files will be automatically updated.

I’d like to see user established parameters for groups and components that can easily Be edited through entity info and then easily extracted in LO.

Those are just a few.

LO has much more.

[Sonder]

I personally haven’t experienced the issues with .dwg export. But I do get it that others have. I would agree that should be a smooth transition.

I totally disagree with any concept that SU should in any way, emulate the mess that is ACAD: a program originally conceived for civil engineering and bloated for decades to the unstable, complex mess it is today. People complain about SU and LO crashing… try some hatch in ACAD! Lol!

[Odd_Haakon_Byberg]

@Anssi

I don’t think this is actually quite true any more

That dwg will go away has been said for years and years. It does not go away. Many need only the underlay, but still sometimes want to reduce it by layer to make it clearer. Some want it, fullflegded, because that just is their routine. Some, for very good reasons, like to keep plan views and sections as part of their drawing portfolio to go with the building end user documentation. A shame then, if that drawing is made from a basic dwg export in sketchup, so that it looks like the house is drawn by complete amateurs.

If you dont need it thats okey. Please dont tell others they dont need it, because that statement makes no sense.

[Anssi]

@Odd_Haakon_Byberg

f you dont need it thats okey. Please dont tell others they dont need it, because that statement makes no sense.

I didn’t. I am not in a position to tell others what to do. I just reflected on how things look like in my little corner of the world. For almost 10 years the only times I need to extract DWG files from my (Archicad) models it is for underlays for engineers, and plan sets for final documentation. I don’t worry about how they look like, as whatever I do, it looks different on another person’s computer, there being no standards on what settings people use. And I have no regrets that after about 30 years as the resident AutoCad expert in our office I no longer have use for that part of my skill set.