This program looks similar to Catia. The background of the sketch window, with a bluish purple gradient going from darker on top to lighter on bottom is very similar to Catia.
With such program, you need to know in advance what you will be drawing, while with SketchUp, you can draw as you go. Of course, for more complex models, you need to have an idea of will be the final model but it is not extremely rigid You just create a hierarchy of components or groups on the fly, when needed, slowly building the equivalent of Catia’s tree. This hierarchy is available in the Outliner.
Having an affordable version of PlusSpec inside Sketchup as an option provided at the point of Sketchup sale will tick off #9 100x over.
I’m open to it, but SketchUp would need to agree. The cost of PlusSpec is high as we don’t have marketing reach, yet I see no reason with volume exposure the addition of PlusSpec to Sketchup could be as cheap as chips. It would certainly bring more customers.
. Architectural Modeling Toolset - This is a toolset that I think could be an extension if it needed to be. Very common uses of SketchUp include the creation of walls, doors, windows, etc, as well as associated openings, etc. Having a toolset optimized to create dedicated doors, windows, storefront systems, stairs, railings, and more (preferably in a way that can be adjusted and interact with each other) could cater to a large portion of the SketchUp user base. I do NOT think Live Components in their current form are the answer to this request, as (A) they are web based, and (B) they don’t really interact with other objects inside of SketchUp in a smart way (i.e. cutting openings, etc).
I don’t know how catia works, but with FreeCAD you can go back to the initial Sketch and change it, the the model will update accordingly.
You don’t need to know everything in advance. Also, for architecture, sketches work as a skeleton frame of a project, therefore they make total sense as a schematic concept.
Even if you want to stop working parametrically and move on to direct modelling, nothing stops you from doing it.
I’d be curious to see that concept being adapted to sketchup, maybe leveraging live components backbone.
I have a working code that allows to set up similar constraints in a drawing, however, I put it aside and am working on something else. The problem with these constraints is that they are a bit complicated for the user. You have to set up several constraints to start getting a result as the user wants.
That said, Trimble seems to be at an impasse with parametrics. The only interest is the Dynamic Components which have not been developed anymore.
Oh boy, here we go… parametric genius known only to one that cannot be shared. Simple solutions that are like magic and available to anyone smart enough but must remain secret, and 2D documentation extensions for Blender about to be developed any minute now… can’t wait.
As far as modeling tools to be included in SU as @JustinTSE asks, sure a few of those would be great. I might ask for some improvements/repairs/fixes to some native aspects of SU first. Especially as the available extensions come in different flavors to suit different workflows, which is handy. But evolving native tools is a good thing, the flip tool is a good example of integration well done, I hardly touch Curic Mirror any more. I could do with something similar with Bevel which is slick. As far as a package of “architectural” tools, perhaps those are better off as an extension, even if it were a SketchUp extension like Sandbox so that it’s not forced on everyone. Not all of us are architects
Yes, I now have expertise in parametric. In last weeks, I have created a code that manages parametric relationships, here is an example of its use. Compared to Dynamic Components, I manage angles more easily (very easily !). And above all, I master the code and decide on its development without waiting more than 10 years.
I would love to have lots of things, but 3 that would be interesting for me:
A way to assign cutting geometry to a component (or in my case a sub component) so you could cut through walls / roofs with window / door components that are assemblies of multiple components.
Proper native solid tools that when trimming / subtracting from a component keeps it a component AND keeps it on any assigned tag.
Solid tools that recognize if I merge 2 solid components with Outer Shell or Union it would make the combined geometry into a component. Same for groups. If it is a mix of group + component it would default to group.
One non modeling request: back edge thickness / dash control and the ability to render these in hybrid in LO
Yes, please all of the mentioned. + parametric modelling (the modifiers mentioned would be part of it) and the possibility to switch off snapping.
But I would first focus on things that can’t be done as plugins, or can only be done worse as plugins for performance reasons (such as rounding edges).
Not sure if this counts as modeling, but I would like them to un-abandon Dynamic Components. Give us an update. We need some way to easily create dynamic curved objects. I’ve found work arounds that involve straight pieces and wedges with a bunch of trigonometry to fake a curved object, but they’re complicated and prone to breaking. Let’s also modernize the interfaces. Live Components aren’t the answer either. Too complicated and having them stored online only, is a deal breaker. In addition, give us an update to the (now abandoned) “Snaps” feature so we can use them inside complex DCs.
I generally agree with this, except that now there are two versions of SketchUp (online and Ipad) that do not support extensions. If that’s the case, a bevel function, for example, should in my opinion be a native tool, not an extension.
Agreed for sure - I mentioned this in the video - Dynamic Components had several functions that Live Components don’t, like live scaling to openings, etc. I think Live Components have several really interesting applications, but things like doors/windows/etc? In my opinion Dynamic Components fit into a workflow much better
Obviously I don’t work for Trimble, so I don’t know, but I’d imagine this would be just a part of the development process of the software. I don’t think adding them as “additional fee features” would be the answer
This is something I keep coming back to - the BEST workflow would be somehow to have an aspect of the door / window that can interact with the wall and cut an opening that is editable/non-destructive and works on grouped geometry. Without converting to a Revit…esque “smart assemblies” system, it feels like booleans would be the best bet.
I know, and it really was a rhetorical question. I think It would be a shame when the subscription price would go way up because of all those good ideas…
Especially because extensions (payed or free) can be chosen by the people who find them usefull.
I’d love the ability to use 2 inferences at once, locking whatever action I’m doing to a single plane. I’d imagine it would work much like how using inferences on the rectangle tool allows you to move in a plane rather than along just one axis. Since the functionality already exists in one tool I feel like it’s doable…
SketchUp isn’t comand based and the inference engine is “always on” so you just have to hover over the first inference for a second or two and then over the second inference for a second or two, then move the cursor to the intersection of those two inferences. There’s nothing more to it really…
I sort of agree, but recently have begun to feel a little bit differently about the matter. The bevel function is a great example of this. Beveling / chamfering edges is a pretty fundamental 3D command. It’s very common across multiple different software packages, and something I think it’s probably fair to expect that a toolset targeted at architectural modeling would provide.
There were originally free extensions available that added this functionality, but now, at least as far as I know, all the extensions that do this are paid extensions. (Note: I am in no way angry at extension developers for charging for their extensions. I believe they deserve to be compensated for their work and this has nothing to do with that)
So we’ve got a situation where a really commonly available 3D function that has significant architectural impact is only available to SketchUp users who pay extra for an extension. PLUS…there are now multiple versions of SketchUp (Web, Ipad) that don’t support extensions and don’t plan to, so to those users, this function is effectively completely walled off unless it becomes a native tool.
While I think a lot of criticisms leveled at SketchUp are unfair, the criticism of “well if you pick SketchUp, not only are you going to have to pay a subscription, but you also have to pay extra to get tools that many (most) other 3D programs offer built in” feels like a valid criticism in some cases.
