In 6+ years or more I can’t think of one new native feature…If there is a roadmap holy ■■■■ I will be dead before we have full materials ( bump map, emissive etc… ).
Ok so I went to your website and my big question is why would you NOT want some new features added to Sketchup?
Changing the width of the circle as you use follow-me on an arc just isn’t possible in sketchup.
So you’re trying to say I didn’t create these in SketchUp? You would be incorrect.
Um there is no native way to change the width of the circle while you are doing follow-me. Please elaborate on how I am wrong and how you would do this??
Like what? I didn’t have any problems drawing what you see there with the tools I’ve already got. I don’t want SketchUp cluttered with a bunch of tools I don’t need.
I never said I used Follow Me. You made that up.
You haven’t been paying attention to what’s been written already.
1 Like
Well for me all the things I wrote above are important to me. You are doing furniture so yes there really is no need for organic modeling because in the end you have to make what you are modeling.
You haven’t said how you made the flame finial anywhere. Where was I suppose to pay attention to ? You just pointed me to an ebook. Most things done in a spiral like all your springs are done with rotated arcs and a circle the you run follow me on. The spring thats get close is just a less rotated arc. I saw the wire mesh of the finial and I a very curious on how it was made.
Except I didn’t use rotated arcs to draw those springs.
As I said, get the book and you can see how the finial was done.
You are so convinced this stuff can’t be done in SketchUp that even if I showed you in a video, you wouldn’t believe it. I
1 Like
Dude if you read above you would know that I KNOW pretty much anything can be done with Sketchup. It all depends on how much effort you want to spend on getting it to do things it really doesn’t like to do. Also, there are tons of add-on which can fill in all the missing feature holes but all the ones I have tried feel like add-ons. I want native features that work the way most existing Sketchup features work.
Where do I find your ebook?
So you don’t feel like you would benefit from a single new feature in Sketchup? 12+ years using the program and there isn’t a single thing that you feel like it needs?
I’m not going to comment on missing features so much - only to say that a if someone objects to a primitives creation tool, then productivity is not an issue that matters for you and perhaps you should not be commenting negatively against someone for whom it does. It certainly does to me.
The main point I want to make is that the Mac interface for SketchUp is a a travesty. It cannot, by any measure of user UI and experience standards be considered a modern application interface. It is the only aspect of SKP that keeps me looking elsewhere on a regular basis – which is basically any time I undertake a particularly complex job where important functions such as layers management, component management, styles, scenes and a few other features are crucially important to getting the job done efficiently and in an enjoyable manner.
Where can we find your ebook?
As a small user of SU I can see all eh points here and all well made. I liken a more complex interface to SKU will all the tools and features that everyone wants to a Photoshop Interface where there is so much you can do but the learning curve and therefore the implementation takes an age! And there are many tools that are rarely used! One of the many pluses of SKU is its simplicity. If more complex features are required then the add on route seems to be a good compromise. Not programmes work for all people. Surely we dot want a photoshop type rendering interface included within SKU? That would be mind-blowing!!
I agree about the Mac interface and docking etc. Too many features make programmes unusable for the majority. Its just my opinion on what I think is a great tool and simplicity produce some amazing results.
Sketchup was developed as 3D for everyone. The plug-in interface allows you to make it as complex as you would like it. By adding features of a rendering engine - bump mapping, reflections, lighting, takes it away from its strongest asset which is simplicity.
I think you mentioned mirroring earlier. You’ve been able to do that with SU since the scale tool was introduced? I think many complain about needed features that in actuality are there, and dismiss the power of the simple format SU is developed upon.
To me that is exactly where Autodesk went wrong. Their programs became too cumbersome and complex making them very inefficient (I used ACAD for more than 20 years).
Features and improvements are being developed and have been since Trimble took over. If you are only using “Make” you are missing half of the equation, where significant changes and improvements have been made. So before you complain too much about the free program, you should invest in the paid version to see what the pro version can do.
4 Likes
It makes me sad that topics like this (and there are very much out there already) got so much views, replies and attention. Shouldn’t we solve users problems with concrete problems instead?! I think I will stop reading through all that negative content…
1 Like
Nope I don’t agree. We have textures and transparency . Would you like it if Sketchup had neither? Adding bump maps, specularity, reflections and emissive are just additional flexibility in the materials. It does NOT make it more complex as a program just more attractive. Go mess around in UnrealEngine. You never render anything you bake in textures. Emissive, reflection, basic shadows, etc are always live and with the exception of more complex lighting do not require baking. Now I am not looking for it to become that overnight but working towards that should be the goal imo.
I am talking about having two pieces that are the same that are merged in the middle. You take two components and flip one and connect then. Then you hide the seam in the middle. Hiding lines only leads to problems when you forget to turn on hidden geometry when editing half your model. Being able to add mirrored geometry is just a better way to do it instead of the current work around way. I want all things that are work arounds to actually have tools.
Sketchup does not have to become bloated or complex if it is done with care. Features that make it even Easier, Fun, Beautiful and Flexible can open up new ways for people to build models.
What features are you talking about? I really can’t think of anything new and I wish I could. Yes I don’t use layout because I use Autocad as a much more superior Layout and images from Sketchup for elevations and sections. Then I just dimension and note on top of that. I purchased Sketchup 6,7 & 8 but have seen no need to upgrade since Make does everything I need. I don’t use layout or style builder. I tried layout several times but I need the speed of Autocad and flexibility. I would LOVE to dump it since its the only PC program I have. Autocad for Mac is still not finished in my eyes unfortunately. Now if Layout could import DWGs that would be a game changer. Also, it would need to have a flexible Autolisp type system for the thousands of keyboard shortcuts I have to do things in Autocad. I don’t see that happening and 26 keyboard keys plus modifiers just does work for me.
You can disagree on the materials, but you are asking for rendering qualities inside of SU, when there are already dozens of plug-ins that do those very same things at very high quality - some even do them inside of SU. I use Lumen RT. I assume you do agree on the “Sketchup is 3D for everyone” because that is the Tenet of SU.
As for mixing ACAD with imagery from SU. I did that for years until LO improved. I now only use LO and SU and it has reduced the time it takes me to do CD’s to less than 30% of the time it took with ACAD. You should give it a shot. Have a look at the book Matt Donley and I wrote:
www.sketchupbook.com
2 Likes
So you do all this for hobby?
No, he’s not abiding by the TOS.
There are native tools for this. The Solid Tools. And it comes free with the Pro editions. 
EDIT: I was teasin’ a bit. But I also did not understand exactly what he was saying about “mirror editing.” This was cleared up below.
1 Like
Also, you wouldn’t use LO to import DWG. You import the DWG to SU and then make a viewport to it in LO. Regarding the lsp routines - I think you are trying to make SU like ACAD. As I’ve said before, thank god it is not. The very fact that you need thousands of lisp routines should tell you there is an inherent lack of simplicity.
I don’t want to try and tell you not to request features in any way. I just think you have been so involved with ACAD that you are reaching for similarities that most of us do not want to see.
The features and improvements added to both SU and LO are many - if you go back and read the release notes you will see…things like inferencing, overall speed, solid tools, DWG inport and export, Outliner to name a few. LO is drastically improved with added features over the past 6 years.
1 Like
I’ll bet there are many that have not even read the terms of SU Make. But if anyone is actually using Make for commercial services should at the very least pay for the Pro version, especially given the low comparative cost.
3 Likes
Once you merge two solids they are one solid which defeats the whole purpose of doing work on one side and it mirroring that work on the other.
Anyways I give up. Lets just all keep using Sketchup the way it is forever…geez. Let me go find an old rotary phone…I am ditching my iPhone…Progress is bad!
Which is the whole point.
Which sounds like it can create easily confused modeling situations. Ie, coming back into a model months later, how would you know that this “special mirrored solid” has different behavior then a “normal solid” ?
I myself have never heard of such a hybrid mirroring solid modeling. It does sound interesting, and like something that would give more power to the base Solid Tools.
(I thought you were speaking of a more simplistic mirror and join operation.)
Okay, I can see why doing this in SketchUp would be a “workaround bummer” (possibly involving facing section cuts to hide the lines.)
Sorry for misunderstanding.
And for the record, I’ve also said in the past that the basic solid shapes tools should always have been part of the core.