January 28, 2020.
it is a shame that some many useful extensions are not free, and more so that many basic functions are not included in the base product. Seems to me, Trimble doesn’t develop more base functionality because developers do it for them? As a hobbyist, I can’t be just plunking down $100 each time i need a new feature.
To avoid that, get Autocad it’s only $1521. / year. Note this is a deal, normally $1690. / year.
To be fair there are many, many free extensions available that are immensely useful.
Indeed the specific extension of his that @voquochai refers to is actually a free offering although he does suggests that you to name a fair price for that particular extension if you are minded to offer some cash for it.
So “you get what you pay for”, meaning autocad is immensely better, since it is more immensely expensive. By that, you undercut the aspirations of sketchup.
I think what sketchup wants to do is appeal to a much larger audience, be more intuitive and accessible, and address professional needs all for a lower price point.
As a former autocad user, I’m well aware of its features, though my experience is dated. I’d like to see sketchup functionality advance more.
I’ve installed the scene manager to play around with it, I paid $0 for it. But, Curic makes a bunch of other interestingly useful extensions that aren’t free, but look like functionality in autocad.
I have 3 tags I use to create othrographic views for 3 collections of parts, per a workflow DaveR suggested. Each part is duplicated and rotated as needed so that a single viewpoint is required in LO. As I add parts, they become visible in
previous scenes. I haven’t figured out yet how to avoid having to go back to every previously created scene to hide unwanted objects. Curic’s addin might help, we’ll see. Proliferation seems inevitable, as you either create more tags, scenes, viewpoints,
or objects to render adequately in LO, meaning more management tools are required to remove tedious and repetitive actions.
FWIW, I like sketchup, I don’t plan on going to autocad. Since I’m retired, I have all the time I need, until I land in a pine box.
kamal
Much of what makes SketchUp more intuitive and easier to pick up is that it has less features, less panels, less buttons etc. SketchUp having fewer fewer concepts and features isn’t just the developers being lazy but a intentional design philosophy. That said, some features could be made native, but extensions has a central place in the design.
Btw, Eneroth Scene Visibility is free and might do what you want.
By that logic, a Koenigsegg CCXR Trevita at $4.8 million USD would be the best vehicle because of the price even if I’m going to use it to haul lumber.
Your remark is just blatantly false.
I was basically told to buy a more expensive product if I didn’t like the features sketchup offers, and a competitor no less. My comment out of that context might seem blatantly false to you, but if you read my comment more carefully, you’ll
see I am not disparaging sketchup.
kamal
This sounds like a very cumbersome work around to try to recreate an AutoCAD style othrographic modeling space, which shows separate camera views simultaneously.
You might find it easier to adopt a 3D approach that is more in line with how SketchUp is deigned. To have only one version of your object exist, use scenes to look at the object from different directions and use those scenes to display the object in separate viewports in Layout. I’m not saying your way is “wrong”, just that SketchUp - layout workflow is designed around a different practice and your way might be adding to the tag/layer struggles. Another extension that might help is called Auto Invisible Layer ON/OFF, it is a simple free way of managing visibility of new tags.
From your description it sounds like you’ve modified the work flow I suggested to the point that it is no longer representative of the way I work.