I’m not too sure who’s replacing SU with Rhino, but it does appear from an internet search that Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD) & Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation (GSAPP) is utilizing Rhino in higher education because of its NURBS-based accuracy, complexity & parametric capabilities to prepare students for the advanced, detailed & computational demands of some modern professional architectural practices.
However, I guess this is for large Architectural Practices who seem to go out of their way to design buildings that are sometimes classed as Biomorphic Architecture. This style explicitly draws inspiration from the shapes, structures & forms of living organisms, such as plants & animals etc. It may be trendy in that world, but I doubt if its ‘bread & butter’ everyday architecture undertaken by the masses.
Rhino appears to have a steeper learning curve than SU & Rhinos command-line interface is initially daunting & less intuitive than SU. The sheer number of commands & the technical nature of NURBS geometry makes the learning period challenging to say the least.
I’ve searched on YOUTUBE to try & find a demo of Rhino being used for a typical building being modelled with 2D plans & elevations being extracted from the model & used in a Layout form for normal plans. However, the ones I’ve found so far aren’t that inspiring & compared to the many SU videos, SU stands tall for this type of work. Even Form.Z looks easier to use if you want a building that looks like it’s a spaceship that’s just landed from an advanced species from light years away……. beam me up Scotty !
———————————————-
I’ve since found Justin’s YOUTUBE video as noted below. Some of those features like:-
Section styles, Selective Clipping, Dynamic vector drawings, Line types & a proper Render engine, all look enticing I guess for someone exploring 3D modelling programmes to purchase, given also a sensible option for a perpetual licence.
I concur. I use Sketchup at the office and got very familiar with Rhino at school. I appreciate both of the programs, but I’m always impressed at how fast and efficiently I am able to manipulate geometry in Sketchup with just the base toolset. Most of my extensions just help me add keyboard shortcuts for selections. My office produces architectural drawings in AutoCAD and uses Sketchup typically as a back of house model, occasionally fleshing it out with detailed materials and assets for a higher end render. Rhino would be overkill, and would slow me down significantly since all I don’t need the level of precision and high end geometry operations. I never open Layout, so to me the model and the drawing set are two distinct aspects of a project that never need to be 100% reconciled; but I can absolutely see why there is an expectation that one piece of software ought to be capable of both in one workflow.
I don’t think Sketchup would ever get replaced by Rhino, unless they listened to the 2% of users who come on this forum and complain about the lack of whatever features they happen to think are critically important. Sketchup plays an important role in providing an incredibly beginner friendly experience, with the option to complicate things as much as the user requires once they’re more knowledgeable. I think another advantage for Sketchup is that the way one thinks about tags, groups/components and the stickiness of geometry is fairly unique, so if you get into the Sketchup workflow and like it other 3D modellers would feel pretty strange.
Totally - SketchUp is significantly faster and smoother to work in (in my opinion). Especially for interiors, I can’t imagine picking Rhino over SketchUp.
I don’t think it would be 100% replaced (especially with the current functionality), but I think it could definitely take a significant part of SketchUp’s market share if they’re not careful.
I do think downplaying legitimate concerns that SketchUp’s toolset is lacking a number of standard 3D modeling tools is a bit shortsighted though - the longer this goes on, the more SketchUp solidifies the reputation of the fun but non-professional toolset
Are clients actually asking for this? What are they doing with it? In the early stages of design, things are very fluid, so I’m struggling to see what the point of this data would be, since most of it will change before construction documents.
At concept and schematic design? The models are detailed enough to get this information? What program is the design happening in?
I mean obviously you can quantify using an OST or a Construct Connect or something, but it seems like most of the early design information I see, even if it’s in a Revit or something like that, doesn’t have enough of the “information” from BIM to be super useful and you end up doing quantification the manual way (not always, but usually)
SketchUp… custom residential / light commercial (tasting rooms, pavilions, horse barns, a couple of corporate headquarters) - during schematics I can export timber lists, prepare quick LO drawings showing surface areas for pricing prefabricated wall panels, show volumes of concrete in theoretical foundations, export schematic window sizes, door schedules, etc.
Some of my clients use this as a go / no go with their clients before getting into CDs and engineering. We can be pretty close on the timber frame structure and enclosure system, and if that budget doesn’t jive with the clients expectations we can change course.
I’m not doing anything terribly exacting like calculating linear feet of copper water pipe or crown mold or the number of electric sockets - just big picture numbers at this stage to get the overall structure and shell budgets started.
If I ever was slow enough to learn the medeek plugins I’d probably be able to offer more data at this stage…. But I just don’t have the bandwidth to do that.
Got it. I was more referring to @iniiris ‘s comment about clients demanding a BIM workflow at larger firms, and more specifically the IFC documents.
He was saying (paraphrasing) that these larger firms are replacing the entire portion of the early concept stage completely with Revit or Archicad, and not using a SketchUp or Rhino period (just cutting out a layer of software completely)
Not that there isn’t value in a custom built SketchUp workflow that provides the information you’re using for your estimates, but I think we might be a bit apples/oranges on this discussion (Unless you’re exporting IFC files from your SketchUp models and sending them to stakeholders?)
This exactly. If they can just sort out the bevel stuff and make it work well, not having to scale up and down, there is a big 3D printing market to be had, also general engineering. I know theres work arounds but most people done want the faff.
I’d say that I NEED spline tools, curved extrusions, easier bends, but most importantly, I have an impossible time ordering laser cut parts because of the lack of a vector based conversion that works. But the program is not a toy. If someone says so, just render out a five minute drawing right in front of them and say. “your turn.”
I do that as well with a couple of my clients: 2 manufacturers will take my export and bring it into their timber processing and panelization software and they can also use that for their estimating process. I also share with one of the PEs I work with who use the models for analysis. They work with SketchUp, AutoCad and CadWorks - so whoever is doing the analysis requests a different 3d format along with my PDF output.
Well. I might need to clarify. I’m talking about public clients for architectural projects in some countries in Europe (cannot say anything about other regions).
They are implementing BIM from the beginning of the projects. Mainly because controlling, estimating costs and so on is much more easy in a standardized world like ifc. Also collaboration should be in theory better with BIM workflows.
For some architecture offices this is leading to cut out completely these layers of software as you said. But this is probably not happening with Rhino if you are Zaha Hadid architects or similar. On the other side, middle size companies designing standard buildings are going this way either because they already work for this public clients (or may want to do it in the future), or just because they fear their clients will demand the same sooner or later.
Well… we used to have 18 sketchup pro users, and now i’m the last one at my firm.
I agree with your comment about the “one BIM Model” being the goal. The lack of a real-world coordinate reference system has been a huge problem for us and has driven many away from SketchUp as a serious professional tool - no point using it as a first-stage conceptual modeller if the results can’t be linked in to project data (maps, existing site context, etc).
Rhino has been taught at universities for 10+ years now, where I’m from, and the attraction is partly that it does all types of modelling, as well as the advanced grasshopper stuff (which people want to get into, because it’s “the future”.).
The documentation and model/project management aspects arent needing to be covered by Uni Students. They like the organic shapes and the nice rendering outputs.
I dont see Rhino getting more popular but I do see Blender on the rise.
IMO SketchUp still has a niche in Arch, LA, Urban Planning and transport sectors - the professional tools, however, are still too limiting and users to have to rely on so many extensions for basic things (even selecting objects). LayOut is a real chore on complex projects or if you happen to work with large/heavy data (terrain and imported 3d models).
I also wonder, with such a diverse way of using Sketchup (thanks to 100s of extensions), how are people supposed to learn as a faculty or profession? How can industry-standard workflows be developed, or tighter integration achieved with other software?
That’s why I continue to advocate for Trimble-curated “packages” of extensions that are bundled together for a specific industry or project type. I think it’s time to bring some of the common extensions/tools “in house” and integrate them with the SketchUp Pro toolset.
I’ve only ever used SKP and LO - I’m a sole trader domestic residential architect and I think SKP+LO is terrific. I use SKP to produce 3D models presented using LO to convey the concept to my clients, they’re happy with that level of presentation. I use these 3D models for planning approvals and then SKP to produce 2D tech/construction drawings presented with annotations and dimensions using LO. I’m entirely self-taught and been using SKP+LO or about 4 years - I’m happy with it and don’t “pine” for something else. Of course, it needs constant tweaks and upgrades - so does everything else - my phone, my car (my Ducati motorbike is perfect).
I used to feel this way, but I’ve changed my opinion a bit. I’m a big extension advocate, BTW. However, if the web version and the Ipad version are not going to support extensions, then I think new modeling tools need to be native tools. You can’t add beveling but only have it available in the desktop version due to it being an extension. (I mean, you could, but it leads to this very weird perception of the free and Ipad offerings)
As in being taught at Universities for Architectural applications? I’ve found it to be VERY clunky for any kind of “to-scale” modeling. Not impossible by any means, but it’s not a good time, even with plugins.
You mean from a feature standpoint? I personally feel like the tone at SketchUp is changing in a positive way from a feature development standpoint - I definitely didn’t want to trash the development team (and I hope it didn’t come across that way). It’s just that that change has not driven a change in the actual modeling feature set up to this point.
I actually agree - there isn’t another program I can think of that I would want to use for interiors or smaller architectural projects. I’ve used Blender, Fusion 360, and Rhino in addition to SketchUp and pretty much always end up back in SketchUp. I also think the way SketchUp is talked about is often unfair.
But, I also think that SketchUp isn’t helping itself in the perception department, and my fear is that perception drives reality when it comes to software adoption. There’s no reason not to have a complete basic modeling toolset in the program, and at the moment, in my opinion, the modeling toolset is incomplete.
Please forgive me for disagreeing with this to a small extent. While I do not feel qualified as a SketchUp user to disagree, as a 42 year HVAC “professional” contractor, we are constantly judged by our ability to utulize new tools and the training it takes to wield them in the field AND the end product. New tools are a MUST in my belief system…it’s that whole “progress or get passed by” kind of thing. We can now perform tasks with new focused tools in 1/10 the time it used to take us “back in the day”…and you ARE judged on that as well as what the end product looks like and then we have performance testing so they make sure the end product actually does what you said it would do.
And while we all reminisce over the “good old days” there is no way anyone wants to go back to using a screw driver to put together pieces of metal conductor pipe versus using a screw gun now days. And a screw gun is immensely more complex than a screw driver.
I mean no sarcasm but I am just a dumb construction worker so this is the only thing my tiny brain can come up with for an illustration.
But I think we can all agree that if I walked up to perform a HVAC installation and pulled out a screw driver instead of a screw gun? I definately would be judged by my ability to use a more complex tool.
Tool development is VITAL to our survival and should be at the forefront of a manufacturer (or software developer) because it is the key to customer retention and repeat business and increased revenue.
Battery powered tools for example? Milwaukee told everyone years ago that their company focus going forward was to eliminate “power cords and air lines” from all job sites. And as a result they had to break down each task and the tool it took to perform that task. As a result they increased their tool lines and decreased the amount of time it took to perform those tasks by eliminating old archaic ways of doing things. Some of these tools took some training to utilize implimenting them into our workflows. I think this is part of what Justin was trying to say. The other part is that now these tools are being used by the next generation, which in turn results in better end user experiences. However Milwaukee had to spend enormous amounts of money for R&D to come up with these new tools. But you can tell that once they nailed down the mindset? New tools started coming out for accomplishing tasks that even we professionals in the field had not even thought of or thought possible. Amazing tools are on the way and I think the SketchUp development team would benefit from the same philosophy.
Develop new tools and then train both the existing users and the next generation on how to impliment them into the work flow.
Turned out pretty good for Milwaukee as well as us “old time” construction workers. Not to mention saving this younger generation from things like arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, repetitive stress syndrome all from using our bodies as a tool. We no longer have to suffer these things and as a result, reap the benefits.
Again, breaking it down to a rediculously low level but I hope I made my point. And I apologize in advance if I offended anyone by my comment.
And sorry for any mispelled words…spell check does not work on the forum…LOL…
The perception thing is interesting for the unique role Sketchup occupies in the wider market of 3D modeling programs. Obviously within architecture, people are feeling some inevitability about BIM. I am pretty happy at my firm and the fact that we never expect the model/modeler/modeling software to be responsible for producing construction drawings, although I imagine that someone who pays for those programs would prefer one program to model and output drawings. Sketchup can remain an efficient way to exercise design ideas in a fun way without being forced to fight against “!!! objects failed to join” errors. And I think that going between the 2D and 3D forces us to think through how things would be built in a way that might be missed when a 3D program produces 2D automatically.
I think the difficulty in defining Sketchup is that it’s so open-ended and approachable that there’s too wide a range of disciplines and industries that would be pulling it in opposing directions. This is of course a massive strength as Sketchup is very unique and able to fill a big market share. Of course Sketchup should continue to add to its functionality and interoperability with other programs. They could easily add an “advanced” toolset or more customization of the interface and keep the underlying workflow much the same.
But it feels like there’s a ever-present “IS IT OVER FOR SKETCHUP” topic on the forum and it really just seems like people wanting Sketchup to be optimized for their workflow, rather than a platform upon which you can build myriad effective workflows.
Totally - I struggle with this all the time on the YouTube channel - how do you make content that’s relevant for the largest number of people, since so many people use SketchUp for varied purposes
This exactly - I don’t think a more robust toolset changes what SketchUp is in a negative way - it just gives it more utility
Agreed, and my goal definitely isn’t to be one of those people (though depending on who you ask maybe I AM being one of those people). It’s to keep this topic at the forefront because I think it’s really important.
I’m just suggesting that the baseline modeling toolset of SketchUp, which hasn’t significantly changed since probably 2012, be expanded to include tools that are included in 99% of other 3D modeling software(s) to keep SketchUp relevant. Things like a bevel function, better material mapping on curved surfaces, a decent polyline tool, tools to create surfaces from edges, and even dark mode look really bad when you have to tell prospective users that they’re not included.
I’m definitely not asking that we make SketchUp some kind of BIM powerhouse or something like that
