There are many of us who are actually quite skilled using SketchUp and Layout and don’t just make “cubes”.
And whilst we are generally happy with SketchUp - for sure more functionality is good, but, for example, I have gladly paid for many of Curic’s plugins but would not necessarily want the extra functionality that Curic’s plugins provide to be incorporated into SketchUp.
You are quite right I and the developers can not guess what you want and need. Maybe it is time to find different software that meets YOUR needs.
For the record, I think Trimble is an outstanding company with fantastic growth potential. SketchUp’s stated mission is fine, but SketchUp is owned by Trimble. You are wondering if perhaps SU is falling a little behind from a features standpoint. I am suggesting that the reason may be because Trimble has little incentive to devote resources to it.
Some thoughts.
If I were an MBA at Trimble analyzing spreadsheets and bar charts, I would not devote a whole lot of resources to SketchUp because it is self-sustaining. It is self-sustaining because it has developers willing to give away their plugins for free (although I do note some have decided that they deserve to be paid for their work) and users can author their own plugins/extensions if they choose. It is self-sustaining because thousands of users share their models on the 3D Warehouse. It is self-sustaining because people love it exactly the way it is—developer plugin based. They see no reason at all to beef up SU’s native modeling capabilities. SketchUp is its own, unique, 3D ecosystem with its own unique thing going on.
That thing, however, is not Trimble’s focus. Trimble’s ultimate objective is big A/E/C, M/E/P, Facilities Management BIM collaboration in the Cloud. They have ‘interoperability agreements’ with Autodesk and other major software players. They are working with Microsoft on cloud services. They want everyone in the cloud with their VR headsets on. And I suspect that they don’t particularly care whether people are using SketchUp or not.
See Section 4.6 about Trimble in the industry paper below. BIM data exchange is Trimble’s focus. Trimble’s objective is to have all software companies play well together in the giant A/E/C, M/E/P, Facilities Management sandbox. They do not care about competing, they care about collaborating.
It is up to SketchUp to maintain its own relevance which it very well may do as there are many SU aficionados out there and, as you point out, it is very easy to learn. People love it exactly the way it is.
I agree with every suggestion you made. I just don’t see any of it happening because Trimble could have made it happen long ago if they believed it was in their financial interest to do so.
We all want always more performance, but I fear there is no magic bullet. SketchUp and LayOut have been incrementally improving, but I guess that tens of millions of polygons won’t be usable for a long time.
Comparisons with other software are moot. Try loading a similar model into AutoCad and turn on all the corresponding display features that SketchUp uses by default. Or try working in the 3D window of Revit or Archicad with a large model. It is slow.
I agree, and that could happen if those features were made native. But when Justin referred to making things more modular so that the underlying simplicity could be maintained, in my mind I extrapolated that to possibly include SU authored paid extensions. Of course, one might argue that other extension developers are already filling that need (whether paid or free). But Justin also briefly alluded to the benefit of stability and ongoing support when an extension becomes native. So doesn’t this suggest the need for a new category of extensions that SU could provide (at a cost) that would remain compatible and continue to evolve in the future? That’s what I think of with “modularity”, and SU could capitalize on this as a way to maintain focus on the basic program while simultaneously creating advanced functionality for those who need it with new revenue streams for the company.
Yes, the only way I can see it working is to have a Pro version as we have now and offer feature packages for $$ for those that want them. Much like the offering that includes V-Ray.
PLEASE tell me this is a joke 
I hear what you’re saying - I just think there’s probably a cost/benefit analysis that has to be run on a lot of these, like improving performance. They’re probably cost or resource prohibitive (I assume), or just not possible. I don’t know which it is, but I’m sure neither SketchUp or Trimble are just “fine” with poor performance because the program makes money.
I have no information on any of these suggestions - I’m just a guy who likes SketchUp and makes YouTube videos, but I would imagine the thing keeping simple tools from being added is more “vision” oriented than technical/cost oriented, but I could be totally off base. In the meantime, I just have to assume Trimble and SketchUp want to continue improving and growing the program 
I don’t envision these being paid packages, though I suppose that’s one way to go about it (not a way I like btw).
I’m more imagining them as a vehicle to add additional functions while still maintaining simplicity, kind of like sandbox tools. It would give the devs options and flexibility to improve the program
That would be lovely, but to RLGL’s point, that could get expensive either for SU or the user. While a subscription based professional program needs to continue to add some new features, many of us would also like to see improvements and bug fixes in the functionality of the basic underlying program as a priority. By moving advanced, lesser used features into a separate expense bucket for SU, they can focus on basic functionality and oft requested native upgrades, while creating another paid category for advanced features that fewer users need (like the twist function) without adding cost for “regular” users or wrestling with priority confusion internally at SU about where to channel their development dollars. Just my .02…
I agree that a few minor tools can be added to the basic SketchUp interface as well as some minor improvements. However, as a whole I don’t think there is anything all that bad with SketchUp, the way it currently works or the features that are available to it.
As far as model size is concerned I really don’t see any difference between any other software out there, none of them use multi-processors any better than SketchUp. In the architectural world there is no reason to model any one component or fixture with millions of polygons. I have never once created a SU model above 50Mb that was properly modeled and not filled with extraneous and unneeded details.
I like the modular feel of SketchUp, I always have. With the API you can add what you want to it to make it into the program you need. The extension model that SketchUp currently uses seems to work fine in my opinion, I really don’t see any major problems with it.
Does SketchUp want to be Blender? Does it want to be Revit? I don’t think it wants to be any of those things but if it wants to compete in those markets it does need the additional tools (extensions) to do that, and that is where the extension do come in.
SketchUp’s strong point is its flexibility to be anything it wants to be while at the same time having the most intuitive 3D drawing environment in the world. That is why after all these years it is still on top.
In my opinion SketchUp only really lacks in two specific areas:
1.) Layout: It needs a more robust engine and a real time API. The biggest bottleneck in creating construction documents within the SketchUp/Layout universe is Layout and its lack of a real time API. Give us developers the tools and we can automate this final step for the architectural user. Yes, then we can have a full set of tools that will level the playing field against products like Revit.
2.) Rendering: Some sort of built-in rendering engine would be awesome. If Minecraft can figure out how to add in ray tracing using those new RTX cards then surely Trimble/SketchUp can do the same.
In my mind SketchUp is easily the most perfect 3D environment and by far the most intuitive I have ever used. Additionally, with the compliment of the API and the Ruby language it is a very powerful tool in the hands of any developer. Lets not try to fix something which isn’t broken. Does SketchUp need to change the way it does things with regards to extensions? I don’t know, I’m not convinced.
Even Form Z Free has a built in ambient occlusion, just saying 
In my other world of audio editing and mixing, digital audio workstations (like ProTools from Avid) use plug-ins (like extensions) for added functionality. The software comes bundled with many, but there are also lots of 3rd party developers. Avid also sells plug-ins in addition to what they bundle with the product. Avid also switched to a subscription model years ago. I think all developers of high-end professional software have to balance features and cost (as well as ongoing support). I guess we all have our wish lists of what we want them to do next, but I’m used to paying for plug-ins. My top expectation from my subscription software is stability, user interface improvements and optimization, and bug fixes. For me, I would start with updating the component browser with better functionality for keeping things organized. I find it very limited, along the lines of software from 20 years ago.
Hey guys & gals - I wanted to make a specific contribution for this discussion - a proposal on how to solve the section-cut problem. I created a separate threat though, so that the idea is not lost in the “Blender vs. Sketchup” discussion… 
Great Video Justin!
Bevel = Yes, would be great. In Lumion it is possible to soften the edges by effect. But not when using enscape.
Hatching = I totally agree. This shoud work right out of the box in SketchUp!
And having tried that add-on, what did you actually think about how it compares to SketchUp? Your response will be really illuminating…
This isn’t the first time you’ve made this claim. To date, I don’t believe anyone’s actually seen details, images, or anything to actually back it up
Sigh…right
For everyone else - the experience you get with ANY CAD add-on for Blender right now is nowhere near the experience you get in SketchUp, AutoCAD, Rhino, Fusion 360, Revit, or any other program designed for actual precision modeling.
I love Blender for a lot of things, but for CAD? The experience just isn’t there at the moment.
Just to be proactive, because I’ve seen where this has gone in the past, can we please move all discussion on comparisons to Blender to this thread - Blender Discussion ?
When I made this video, I really wanted to drive a discussion about features that could be added directly to SketchUp. While there is value in looking at what other programs can do for inspiration, that’s not really what this thread is about…
Perfect - sounds like we’re in agreement
This is the only way I can see to keep the cost down to a reasonable level for hobbyists who are on limited incomes. Especially with the inflation, we are seeing these days.