Gully's wishlist resurrected

I created a wishlist for, I believe, SU 2014. Because many of the items have come up, some repeatedly, on this forum, I thought I’d just hoist this old thing up the flagpole again and see whether anyone salutes, or perhaps clicks their heels.

Fully Annotated 3D Models. Let me emphasize here that I am specifically interested in the ability to create fully annotated 3D models, not some 2D image or static view produced as output from the model. As far as I’m concerned, using a 3D model as nothing more than a means to produce static 2D views—whether by using LayOut or an external renderer—misses the point of having a 3D model in the first place and destroys much of its real value: being able to present complete product definition in the form of an interactive 3D model capable of displaying both prepared dimensions and other geometric and attribute information for which the model can be queried in real time. This vision becomes much more compelling now that mobile devices like smartphones and tablets can bring digital product and structure definitions into the shop and field and eliminate the last excuse for 2D paper documentation.

So here is my list:

1. Support for Small Faces. SU’s (or OpenGL’s) inherent face-size limitation, which keeps it from forming faces smaller than around 1mm or .04," inevitably creates problems on geometry in the Mechanical Design size range, and it comes up a lot on the forum. I’m kind of embarrassed at repeatedly having to explain this shortcoming and the absurd kludge used to work around it–impromptu scaling. (Why aren’t the problem itself and the ugly workaround of scaling up and down in your head even mentioned in the “Knowledge Base”?)

The idea of having to do math, however simple, in one’s head while sitting at a computer is nothing short of grotesque and creates a time-wasting do-loop and an unnecessary class of errors. These scaling conversions could easily be done by the program internally behind the scenes, rendering the problem invisible to the user.

Therefore, I propose that a size-range attribute, with values of, say, “mechanical” and “architectural,” be added to the Units section. Thereafter, an internal scaling filter would be applied to all input dimensions to bring them into SU’s addressable size range and its inverse applied to all dimensions reported back or displayed by SU. I believe that CATIA uses a system like this.

2. Smart Measurements box. Before leaving the seeming incongruity of a computer program that forces you to perform calculations on the side–whether in your head or with a calculator—I’d like to repeat and strongly endorse a suggestion we’ve heard here several times before, namely, a Measurements toolbar capable of evaluating mathematical expressions and then executing the result. A great example would be the Google search box, which is an amazingly versatile command-line calculator and unit converter, capable of evaluating just about any expression or formula you can throw at it. Maybe Trimble could lease the code.

3. Improved 3D Annotation Support. By “annotation,” I’m including all forms of human-readable information applied to the model, expressed in words, numbers, and symbols, and the various line types used to apply them. This includes dimensions and tolerances, item callouts, local notes, and things like weld symbols and surface texture symbols. Just as there’s no reason that a product definition must be a 2D drawing, there’s no reason that all these forms of annotation shouldn’t be applied directly to a 3D model to good effect. That is, there’s nothing about any of these forms of annotation that makes them applicable only to 2D drawings. As I’ve mentioned before, there are ANSI/ASME (US) and ISO (international) standards that define standard practices for the application of annotation to the 3D model.

I’m not asking for a complete ASME dimensioning package. I’m just asking for the basic ability for someone to construct these elements manually, which presently can’t be done in SU at all. Here are some requests all having generally to do with improving annotation:

3.a Thin Graphic Line Type for Annotation. The big obstacle to full annotation is that there is presently no line type that can be used to construct leader, extension, dimension, center, and phantom lines, which are all supposed to be thin and visually subordinate to object lines. As it stands, any line drawn by itself in space comes out as a profile line, which is thick. This new line type should be sensitive to inference so it can be positioned accurately relative to geometry and text and so it can be built into dashed line patterns.

3.b Standard Drafting Line Conventions. Alternatively, the ability to use the full complement of standard line weights and line conventions instead of the current “edge and profile” system—perhaps implemented as a style–would be very useful, and would subsume the previous request.

3.c Angular Dimension Tool. Hard to say which is more surprising: the absence of an Angular Dimensioning tool in the first place or the development team responding to requests for it by adding it to LayOut only. SU itself requires an angular dimensioning tool that produces standard-format angular dimensions. The arc-with-leader dimension produced by the angular dimensioning plugin is non-standard and not acceptable for engineering usage.

3d. Improved Leader Lines. SU’s default leader is hostile, quirky, and largely unworkable. The following improvements are needed:

  • Ability to place two or more leaders on a single dogleg and point each arrowhead independently.
  • Ability to extend leader from beginning or end (or both) of note or callout.
  • Leaders should be able to meet horizontal dogleg at an acute angle if that’s what fits the space most efficiently
  • Leader text should stay where you put it—no more of this surprise flipping over to another location.

3e. Ability to to add tolerances to dimensions. Dimensions on Mechanical Engineering product definitions are required to be complete with tolerances—representing permissible variation from nominal during manufacture. Tolerances may be expressed by direct annotation or by general note.

Direct tolerances. Direct tolerances (applied directly to individual dimensions) are of three main types:

  • Plus-and-minus, e.g., 1.234 ± .005, 1.234 +.005/-.001 (arranged over and under)
  • Limits, e.g., 1.234 – 1.244, [or arranged as upper limit over and lower limit under]
  • Geometric. Geometric tolerances are also known as feature-control-frames

Note-form tolerances. Note-form tolerances usually employ dimension precision–the number of decimal places to which the dimension is stated–to invoke a standard tolerance. For instance, this is a standard general note invoking two levels of tolerances: Tolerances on dimensions: .XX = ±.03; .XXX = ±.010.

3f. Annotation Planes. Looking forward, it would be lovely to implement the concept of annotation planes put forward by ASME Y14.41, “Digital Product Definition Data Practices.” An annotation plane is a hypothetical plane that is either congruent with or perpendicular to the feature being annotated upon which all extension and dimension lines, dimensions, arrowheads, other local notes and callouts, and so forth, associated with that feature are projected. In that way, ordinary 2D text and other annotation can be consistently applied to features in 3D space.

4 Construction Tools. For SU’s construction toolset, I have two requests to propose.

4a. Circle Tool Alignment Enhancements. First, as has been discussed many times on the forum, it would be very useful to extend the special axial alignment capabilities of the Rotate tool and the Protractor tool to the Circle tool. This includes the ability to snap to an existing edge as an axis and the ability to pull a rubber band axis out into space that can be aligned using axial or other inferencing.

4b. Native Lofting Tool. I join the chorus of requests for a native lofting tool. I find that skinning a series of cross-sections is the method I use most to construct organic or non-rectilinear geometry. This could be an extension (that is, a real, integral extension) of the existing From Contours tool, which presently is, to say the least, quirky.


These types of improvements perhaps only within Pro would go further to encouraging people to buy the pro version than simply offering them solid tools and layout etc.
Personally, even though I have bought pro, I have no use whatsoever for layout, but the above would be serious inducements to me.


The term “more likely to be hit by a comet” comes to mind.


1 Like

See this small scar above my left eyebrow? That’s where I was grazed by a passing comet when I was a lad. An old woman told me it was a lucky omen.


1 Like

What the heck…don’t ask, won’t get!

You forget Fat Faces…

Seriously, many of my modelling problems would be solved if SketchUp introduced true solid modelling. Converting solids to meshes is always easier (the application has to know how to do it already to get anything displayed) than the other way round.


Given the choice, which would you @Gully_Foyle, @Shep, @slbaumgartner, @Anssi and @Box prefer?

A. The entire list implemented in SU 2016.
B. A true circle/arc entity in SketchUp tomorrow morning.

To me, one of the most sorely missed tools in SU is there in Euclid’s hand.


It might go together. “Advanced” modelling applications use geometric entities to construct their 3D geometry, and face geometry is generated on top of this framework for display purposes only.


A more pompous way of saying about the same as Anssi:

I would very much like to see the relationship between abstract geometry (arc and circle in particular but you can probably think of others) and its screen presentation inverted. That is, make it so the metadata now in the Arc is fundamental and the sequence of Edges is a representation instead of the other way around.

Number two on my list would be to have a better way to deal with nearby Vertices (the small Face problem) than today’s scale-up/scale-down workaround. It’s interesting to me that the change above would eliminate some instances of this problem by allowing mathematical calculation of intersections instead of the current Edge-based technique.

Alas, I fear that both of these go so deep into the basic way SketchUp was originally designed that they are today a lot harder to achieve than it might sound.

I fear this too. What we are asking would probably require the application to be re-written from the ground up.

The Sketchup interface is superior to any of the other modelling applications, I haven’t yet found anything near the usability in solid modellers.


Arc tool +1

A transform.tool like Adobe Illustrator - xyz coords of an object and the ability to move it by typing coords

Line thicknesses

Basic hatching

Make it more like a typical cad program - we need to create “drawings”, quickly, plain and simple

Go Gully go.

I only understood half of what you said but need a 100% of it. Thanks for the review.

Thanks, Tom, I appreciate that.

Speaking of appreciate, I am especially impressed by the SU Team’s thoughtful responses to these suggestions.


1 Like

Gully, while I’ve got your learned attention. I’m an interior design detailer that is constantly doing Offset tasks as illustrated below in a cabinet I”m detailing. I’ve looked everywhere for the answer to: why does the cursor, on SOME occasions, highlight the selected area when I only hover over the surface and other times It requires that I Select the Surface then Select the Offset and then drag the cursor to get the chosen Offset. When I’m doing this a hundred times it would be so much more efficient to get it to automatically Select when I hover over. Hope I’ve described that correctly.

Any article you know about that could help me control that would REALLY be appreciated.

Great way to get on an ignore list.


One more thing I would add to Gully’s wish list would be better layer control with nesting.
My 2-1/2 cents worth or my wife would tell me, none cents.


If the significance of @Box’s post is lost on you, let me spell it out. Nobody here is interested in wading through your repetitious, self-serving, promotional blitzkrieg, and this certainly is not the place for it. I’m afraid it’s really soured me on you and your company, not to mention your question, which should have been a new thread anyway.



I think it’s an unfortunate side effect of posting via your email.
It adds any signature you have set for your email to the post.

1 Like

Whoa, Mr. Foyle, calm down, you obviously mis read my intent. Not being a regular chatterer on this forum put me at a disadvantage on protocol. Forgive me for reaching out for a simple question out of respect for your expertise. I’m hoping that you just had a bad day and rushed to judgement about my question and the icons (that got expanded) put at the bottom of my correspondences, just in case someone cares to find out who I am. Kicking a laying dog isn’t all that attractive or appreciated.

Take care

Gully, thanks for putting so much thought and time into your post. I PM’d you.