I donāt know. If I were to start learning a software because of the parametric capabilities Iād rather go for Houdini which is natively node-based.
I find this point of view very relevant and interesting. Rhino lacks two things: a better drawing tool with inference like Sketchup or the one Iām developing, and a parametric solution like Dynamic Component, which Trimble wants to deprecate (and which Iām developing). Drawing in Rhino has improved in the latest version, but itās still not good enough.
As for Grasshopper, itās currently the best tool in its field, even if there are many very simple areas for improvement that would allow it to go further. Grasshopper isnāt exactly the same as parametric solutions like Dynamic Component; it doesnāt meet the same needs.
The idea that we reach a sort of ceiling with SketchUp is also very true, thatās also my feeling.
His primary point is not wrong; Of all the architecture firms in the world, Rhino + Grasshopper is a great tool for the few who get to do that kind of work, and so, knowing this tool right out of school is a plus for a student to get hired by one of those firms. Most of the rest of the presentation is just biased embellishment. Criticizing SketchUp for itās reliance on extensions, and then boasting of the large community of extension developers for Rhino seems duplicitous. Also, boasting of the large and supportive community of users ignores the same that could be said of SketchUp with this forum here and what I have seen at the last three 3D Basecamps.
It was an interesting video until he said that if you know how to use rhino and grasshopper youāre a more advanced designer than those who donāt, he missed the point that all these different softwares are just tools. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright and Charles-Ćdouard Jeanneret-Gris didnāt even have an architecture degree, made all by hand and are considered the fathers of modern architecture. You could give the best blacksmith shop with all kind of tools and furnaces to one guy and a hammer, an anvil and coal to a blacksmith master, guess who will make the best knife?
Iām not agreeing with everything in the video, just thought it fit into this conversation, the YouTube algorithm actually showed me this video after watching Justinās video lol. Itās definitely an interesting topic and I think one reason AutoDesk grew the way it did, giving free 3 year student licenses, fully featured.
Sketchup as a modeling software has been making some good decisions developing it the last few years.
On the other hand, eliminating the make version and giving a binned web version instead, wasnāt a smart move imo. I also think that the make version shouldnāt have been free, it was created by Google to try to get people to make free models for their maps, Trimble left it for some year after its acquisition but they shouldāve put it a lower price since it didnāt include Layout, there are a lot of users that by whatever reasons, donāt use layout at all but they need the desktop version because of the plugins.
This take me to the plugins part, I donāt think that sketchup is lacking of several modeling tools, probably the bevel tool is the only one that should be added, because sketchup has a huge independent developers community and big companies as well that make awesome tools that sketchup shouldnāt make, cause the beauty of sketchup for beginners is the simplicity and intuitiveness, if you load it with a bunch of complex features, it will lose its essence and it will increase the costs.
And I agree completely with Justin on the education licensing aspect, in my country thereās not an official reseller, itās almost impossible to get an educational license, almost all the students who canāt afford a license, use cr@cked software, while Autocad, Archicad and Revit offer free licenses just with a prove of being enrolled in a University, at least they used to when I was a student, Autocad and Archicad offered 3years of student licenses for free, itās a smart move cause many of the students will keep using those softwares on the professional level
I still think you are facing it from the wrong angle. The main features from SU and Rhino didnāt change that much in the las 17 years (since grasshopper appeared). And now is Rhino replacing SU? I donāt think so.
In my opinion, the reason why SU lost relevance in the architectural industry is BIM and many companies going from āAutoCAD 2d + SUā to Revit or Archicad. They couldnāt justify the use of SU any more. Itās not just the cost but also kind of trying to be consequent with the idea of BIM and having just one Model.
On the other side, Rhino stayed. Because Companies using Rhino couldnāt achieve those designs using only Archicad or Revit.
Obviously these are general therms and there are always exceptions.
So, for me as an architect not designing crazy buildings, and thinking Revit and Archicad cannot replace SU either, because SU is much more flexible, intuitive and versatile. What I really wished is having better documentation tools, and SU replacing Archicad or Revit, than Sketchup replacing Rhino. Which I think is what this post is about.
Iāve been using SU and LO exclusively for my architectural design for almost 15 years. (prior to that an AutoCAD and Architectural Desktop user).
I agree with Nathanial: LO is the biggest problem with SU/LO not being taken seriously in the AEC industry. Opening up LO to outside developers was rumored years ago, but instead continues to get moldier in the hands of Trimble.
Due to my frustration with LO for years, Iāve been training myself on Chief while watching them continuously add more useful features with every release. I will be eventually be leaving LO in the dust for Chief and unfortunately SU will fade away as well.
Iāve been watching Chief make moves in the AEC industry. A lot of interior designers and design/build general contractors are using it. The community colleges and interior design training schools are teaching it. Chief has a larger presence than SU (or Rhino orā¦.) in the industry magazines and trade shows like IBS.
Chief does have a very strong user base of interior designers. It also is very automated when it comes to creating construction docs, a huge plus and significant time saver for many designer and contractors.
Where it falls down when compared with SketchUp is the following:
1.) Its not really an open ended 3D modeling environment. However you can use some workarounds/hacks to āmassageā say a cabinet into a truss. Either way it is very difficult to freely model āstuffā other than the architectural elements that are provided within the program. In fact, Chief recommends just bringing in models from SketchUp for misc. items likes cars, people etcā¦
2.) No backend API. Third party developers like myself are essentially locked out from building real tools or add-ons Chief. It is a closed system. If it was open like SketchUp it would be a much bigger threat that it already is.
3.) Some users of Chief have correctly noted that many of the framing algorithms that create things like rafters roofs are not quite right. You would be mistaken if you think you can just pull dimensions directly from the framing model and build from them. Whereas you can take a hip roof generated by my truss extension and cut it in the shop exactly per the model and it will then fit together like a Lego set in the field.
My conclusion, even though Chief is beating SketchUp in the construction document arena it is nowhere near it in the 3D modeling realm. SketchUp coupled with some well crafted extensions is far more powerful in my opinion. If Chief every opens up a decent API that very well may change but I donāt see any movement in that direction, which is fortunate for SketchUp.
If weāre going to look at it this way, there hasnāt been a ton of movement in Revit from a feature standpoint either.
I just donāt think this is true. A lot of big architectural firms utilize Revit for documentation, but another program (SketchUp, Rhino, etc) for earlier stage conception designs. I donāt think Revit (or Archicad) have expanded to fill this function - itās still a need.
Iāve heard this argument a lot, and honestly the more I hear it, the more I think it just isnāt true. The essence of SketchUp is making 3D modeling accessible, and thereās no reason (A) that you couldnāt just have these other tools included in a way where you could toggle them off and (B) that the tools themselves also couldnāt be accessible (i.e. more easy to use than in other software)
Read some of the comments on that video - there are a LOT of people that donāt like that you have to pay extra for modeling tools that are standard in most modeling programs. Likeā¦a lotā¦
I think Iād sum the comments of that video up into 3 buckets -
- People that are unhappy about the cost / subscription model (I doubt this is going anywhere)
- People that arenāt happy with their experience in Layout (this seemed pretty common)
- People that feel that for the cost, SketchUp should include more modeling tools (which I personally agree with)
Thereās also a 4th subset in there that does CNC/Fabrication type stuff that has a hard time with SketchUp because of the way it handles curved and complex geometry.
Iām not saying people arenāt using it, or that itās a bad tool. Iām just saying Iām not seeing the kind of movement towards Chief in numbers that would make it a real threat to SketchUp.
There are workarounds and plug ins to help with this but exporting true arcs, splines, and curves natively with would be welcome.
What are those tools? Youāll still have to pay of those tools are added to sketchup, people complain when sketchup increases the price. The difference is that most of the paid plugins offer perpetual licenses, if all those tools were added to sketchup youāll have to pay extra included with your subscription. I prefer to pay for Fredo, Thom Thom or Curic plugins once than paying every year for some tools or features that those plugins include.
Beveling, an actual spline/curve editing tool, the ability to extrude curved surfaces, tools that let you adjust how materials apply to complex surfaces, tools to create surfaces from edges, and probably more.
These are all tools that are contained in 99% of other modeling programs, and all have applications in areas SketchUp is specifically targeting (Woodworking, Landscape Architecture, Interior Design, and General Architecture)
And honestly, what SketchUp SHOULD be doing is looking at new ways to make the 3D modeling process accessible with other tools and functions - non-destructive modeling, a Trimble Creator that actually interacts with model geometry, etc.
I donāt know where this comes from - if SketchUp is going to raise the price, theyāll do it anyway. Itās not like they charge on a per tool basis. You donāt pay an extra $1.50/month because they added a collaboration function.
And if theyāre going to raise the price anyway, Iād rather they provided a robust, accessible toolset rather than skipping out on tools that almost every single other modeling program includes by default.
Justin looks like me when Iāve discovered a bug 
yup, I posted about SU credibility a while back, and I see that far too often in industry: people look past it, thinking itās a fundamental tool for children to learn on and not a series industry tool.
I agree with everything you have said here. I use SU in construction which is great and also for 3D modelling, but my god it drives me nuts. like the basic bevel tools etc. Iv also been looking at what options do i have and i think i will start to look at blender also. Money is tight and i dont want to keep giving it to a programme which is not longer progressing or like you said will be left behind.
but as a professional you dont want to keep spending too much time faffing around with the programme. Time is money..
Not a Rhino thenā¦.Gulpā¦..