I have been very devoted to only SketchUp these last 10 years but recently I have had many requests by users of my extensions (past and present) to consider porting the extensions or at least the functionality to other 3D drawing platforms.
Up until now I have resisted mostly because I am already stretched quite thin and I also did not want to invest the time into learning a whole new API for each additional platform. I am also of the opinion that SketchUp is the superior platform for architectural work, so you have to factor that bias in as well. However with the advent of AI and especially these latest models I think the calculus has changed slightly.
Just last night my son and I created a simple SU extension as a test vehicle and then within mere minutes, using AI, we successfully ported this extension into Blender. Now let’s not get too excited, my extensions are quite complex and they also have a lot of preconfigured assets so any way you shake it a port will be a long and tedious process. However I do see a way forward if I choose to take it.
The three other platforms that have been requested the most are: Blender, Rhino and Revit.
Who knows, maybe if I can create some additional revenue streams I can actually afford to bring on some additional part time or full time help. My biggest bottleneck has always been myself, I’m full of ideas, as you all know, but there is an actual limit to how much I can execute in any given day (even with AI).
Even though this would be strictly a business decision and not a matter of personal preference I am still concerned or curious on how this move would be viewed by the SketchUp community.
Blender feels very foreign to me and I think I now see why SketchUp is a better architectural platform but it could just be my familiarity with SketchUp. For those interested in my progress on the Blender front you can follow my updates here:
To avoid any confusion with the SketchUp extensions I am going to slightly change my extension naming convention. For example for the Truss extensions or add-ons:
mdkTruss Blender
mdkTruss Rhino
mdkTruss Revit
However the SketchUp products will all retain their original names (ie. Medeek Truss) since they are the original products.
I saw your discussion over at the Blender list. One thought I had was that SketchUp users may know “Medeek”, but users of those platforms may not be familiar so ‘mdk-’ may be a missed opportunity to introduce yourself/creations with the name you may want them to actually remember. As you noted, “Medeek Truss Blender” (and others) may be a mouthful. But since they are in that ‘world’, I’d guess people would truncate it too ‘Medeek Truss’, etc. I’d think having people remember Medeek would better than mdk-. Just my two cents.
Hmmm… you do bring up a good point. I’m still undecided on the whole naming thing right now. Mostly on my website I need to differentiate the SketchUp from the Blender versions of my extensions. I don’t want people to accidentally select the wrong one, that would just result in more emails and phone calls.
My take is that ‘mdk’ isn’t a user-facing name. It may be one that your present users know from interacting with Medeek. But it’s a little more ‘insider’.
Medeek for Blender, or Medeek - Blender, seem like they’d be the top-level category names. Then Medeek - Truss Blender, or just Medeek - Truss. Once the user is in the category, it’s implied that the extension is Medeek Truss Blender, etc., just as it’s implied that your extensions are now Medeek for SketchUp - Truss. So it seems those could be dropped.
Have top-level navigation that gets people to the platform family they are looking for (preferably color-coded, and/or differentiated with platform specific icons). Then they know where they’re at and you don’t need to repeat.
Medeek SketchUp
BIM
Project
Truss
Medeek Blender
BIM
Project
Truss
Even though Medeek for SketchUp is the original, for new Blender users Medeek Blender is going to feel like the ‘real one’. From their vantage point, it’s “Medeek Truss”, etc. If needed, you introduce Blender users to ‘insider’ names (e.g., mdkTruss).
Michai Stanchu @mihai.s does a good job with SketchUp and Blender branding on his YouTube videos. May be worth a look for ideas.
I think for now I will just go with Medeek Truss Blender and do the same for Revit and Rhino, if I ever get that far. This porting business is tedious work, not exactly fun or interesting. I’m mostly posting on the Blender board about the progress I’m making, but I think I’ll post also post here once in a while as well.
Beyond Blender I would really like to see if I can port the extensions into Rhino. Revit may also be an option later on, but I’m really not a huge fan of Revit, I feel like it is a very clunky piece of software.
Here are some screenshots of a common truss with cladding, battens and gutters. It really looks quite similar to what we have in SketchUp with the Truss plugin but under the hood it does have some significant differences.
I’ve released the first BETA version of the extension (Version 0.9.5). Please note that only common truss types (ie. King Post, Queen Post, Fink, Howe) can currently be drawn with the extension. The web page is posted here for more information:
You can also download the 30 day trial at this link:
I will proceed to port over more truss types in the next few days and eventually we will get to rafter roofs, hip sets and complex roofs.
Version 0.9.5 - 08.08.2026
Created Medeek Truss - Blender extension, utilizing Blender’s Python API.
Added the following common truss types: King Post, Queen Post, Fink, Howe, Fan, Mod Queen, Double Fink, Double Howe, Mod Fan, Triple Fink, Triple Howe, Quad Fink, Quad Howe, Penta Howe.
Currently the Blender version of the plugin is only capable of common trusses but at least I’ve got most if not all of the advanced options already working from day one. My progress has been much quicker than the initial development of the Truss plugin some 11 years ago, most of that is because I’m not starting from scratch this time. Most of the calculations and algorithms carry over directly so that also helps.
I have absolutely no idea if my plugins in Blender will gain any traction. I don’t think there is actually that many people doing architectural work in Blender, for good reason. So whether I decide to port over all my plugins is yet to be determined.
It would be interesting if your Medeek Truss - Blender extension actually pulled some Blender users to SketchUp. We often hear about SU users considering switching to Blender. As of late Blender isn’t recognized as being good for architectural work and document creation. Maybe there’s a group of Blender folks who say, “Hey this Medeek way of doing Sketchup is showing us that SU is worth switching over from Blender”. It would be sort of counter-intuitive (and humorous) if Medeek - Blender ended up being a gateway extension for Blender users
And just when I thought I had enough on my plate… I’m now porting the Truss plugin over to Rhino. I’ve started a separate Rhino thread here:
The one thing I like about Rhino is that I can essentially use my same HTML menus I’ve created in SketchUp, that has saved me some work.
Obviously the Blender port is far from finished but I just wanted to put something out there and kind of test the waters. If there is enough interest I will pursue the development further but it really depends on Blender community and the same goes for Rhino.
I will say the Rhino rendered mode sure does look nice with these trusses. I’m now wondering why SketchUp has never included a native rendering mode. Turning on shadows and the other effects gets you pretty close I will admit but a rendered option would be nice, don’t you think?
This porting business is going pretty smooth compared to what I had originally envisioned. However I haven’t tried to anything too complicated yet. My concern is actually with the Wall plugin and the interactions required between wall corners and tee intersections, I’m not really sure if that can be duplicated on these other platforms. Still quite a few potential pitfalls, basic geometry and textures is probably the least of my worries at this point.
It’s looking like it’s going well. Hopefully no walls -ahem- will stand in the way of you getting your walls ported over.
Out of curiosity, you have pre-configured components that you bring into your models. The hurricane ties and all sorts of hardware are ‘complicated’. But what is the reason not to draw them programmatically? They don’t have to be parametric, so you just provide a set of standard sizes in a library?
I think you answered your own question. The reason not to draw them programmatically is that they are too complicated.
With other hardware that would require an unlimited variation in sizes and aspect ratios, you have to draw those programmatically (ie. windows and doors).
With certain standard profiles, like I-joists and W flange steel beams, it just makes sense to draw them on the fly.
Yes And you just keep skp files small so the trade-off is well worth it. And a separate library or it has to be bundled into your extensions? I don’t see them in your resources so I presume they are bundled into your extensions.
Also, it looks like you may have ‘gone to town’ on updates to your website resources. There are some new icons there!
