I know. There are a few modelers that are able to mix all kind of modeling descriptions. Like nurbs with triangulation, subd and solid modeling, parametrics…
What I’m thinking is not actually that, but how any Sketchup object can be described. Architecture uses that, but all disciplines can use it too and Sketchup is 3D for all, so having a doors tool makes sense only in the architectural context. Makes sense to Flextools plugin as it is architectural, but makes no sense for character design unless you’re modeling the environment.
However a wall can be an extruded object, as well as a tree, or an arm, or an object part.
Some objects are stacked, some are extruded, some are composed into assemblies, some are layered diferently, some are arrayed.
I wouldn’t want to use a “Fence” tool to create an array of trees in a street, pearls in a neklace, or a balaustrade. I would want to call it an array and know that the array is going to be a repetition of objects on a path, a grid, or any other kind of distribution. I would like to use the array tool or set them up as an array component and Sketchup would know that component would be an array of objects, report it and, eventually, if I would be an architect, I would tag it as IFC class and export it.
That’s the same with doors and windows, they should be assemblies that will glue and eventually cut holes through objects they are attached to. Ponds, drill holes, bullet holes and whatnot, wouldn’t use the window tool but the hole tool?
Now I’m also not talking about parametrics, only talking about object semantics and how that relates to their base description, reporting and eventually handling or exporting. Just as it happens to solids, surfaces and curves. We could still model them however we see fit, as we do, somewhat, with this kind of objects, but Sketchup would know what those are instead of them being dumb geometry.
This would be, somehow, a natural sketchup language for objects that fit most Sketchup disciplines instead of only architecture.