Hi Justin,
Its odd that most of the top listed items on your survey, as I understand, have been in Form-Z for many years ! However, as mentioned before, despite the abilities of Form-Z from AutoDesSys as shown on their YOUTUBE videos, the product doesn’t seem to attract anywhere near the amount of users that SU has !
If you lack communication & direction to your users, product confidence is lost, no matter how good the product is I guess… 
Cost + Ease of Use
Well having just visited their website, the fact that I couldn’t find a single image of the UI or what the program looks like is not helping them (just a whole bunch of rendered images)
I think there’s definitely a marketing piece at play, but having not used Form-Z, I can’t speak to the rest
I agree, and if you look at this image of a cross section of a door (Medeek Wall) you can see things are indeed quite complicated, and yes, there is a lot going on. But what you are seeing is an actual model (not mythical) of a framed door opening with installed door and its casing and exterior trim (along with gypsum, sheathing and cladding):
In 2018 I had the distinct pleasure of being a participant in a developer’s question and answer session at the Base Camp in Palm Springs. My biggest reason for creating the plugins, when asked, was that I was inherently “lazy” and was looking for an easier way to create these complicated wall and roof assemblies. So yes, lazy can actually be a good thing, counter to some of the values that we have all been brought up with. When you think about it lazy can easily be translated into “efficient”. We all want to get more done with less effort and less time expended. That is what parametric extensions and advanced tools give us.
If I asked you to model the door and wall assembly shown with native tools only, how long would it take you? With a well crafted tool or extension would it surprise you that I can generate this in about 10 seconds, with only five clicks of my mouse!
After reading and rereading much of this thread I’ve given some serious thought to the business model and target audience of SketchUp. Granted the users of SketchUp are a diverse bunch and it is probably hard to perfectly coral them all into an oversimplified ecosystem, but I will try anyways.
You basically have the professional users and the non-professional users:
For the non-professional users it is probably hard for most of them to pony up the $300+ dollar every year to pay for the subscription for the PRO version, so most will use the free web based version if they can get away with it. However some of them will want or require the use of extensions so a certain percentage will actually purchase the PRO version even though they may find it hard to justify. For these users parametric BIM tools and automation are probably not as much of a concern as are advanced modeling tools (ie. bevel etc..)
The pro users can mostly be divided into two camps, the construction side and the interior design side. The interior designers probably have no need for advanced architectural tools or BIM capability, at least I would assume that to be the case.
So really you are left with the designers, architects, engineers, contractors, estimators and builders who are requesting BIM or BIM like capabilities within SketchUp. For them automation and efficiency is particularly important, because for these individuals and even companies time is serious money. Most of them do not want to spend hours modeling each stud and window individually. Modeling is simply a means to an end, the actual deliverable is typically construction documents in one form or another.
The problem is that if you recreate or reconfigure SketchUp to target the BIM audience what does that do to the rest of the user base? That is why I think BIM capabilities within SketchUp should remain an optional extension whether it is developed in-house or third party.
yep. I agree. in studio.
Studio is advertised as “sketchup for architects”. but it’s not, it’s sketchup for people who want Vray.
studio could be sketchup + architecture / bim tools (official extensions, like scan essential?)
forget Vray. I’ve talked to a bunch of users who would be interrested in revit importer or scan essential but feel they’re paying for vray when they’re already working with enscape or twinmotion or else.
let Vray users be in charge of their own licence, the way all the other rendering tools are, and instead add actual value to sketchup with extra tools.
advanced ? no, you’re right. they might benefit from basics though. The “hard and boring” part for them is to build context, the empty shell that will support their project.
Earlier today, Adebeo, french company, showcased their new “interior design” plugin. it’s a mix of stuff discussed here, wall, surface, windows and doors, faces from lines, simple thicken pushpull, stairs, various cupboard creators… all in one plugin. It’s still in beta.
I’m old school, I see this and think “ha c’mon, I used to do it all line by line” but the truth is… it’s a sexy package. I’ll try the beta if I can, and might end up teaching it. it doesn’t go too far into construction details, it allows you to build a project shell really quickly so you can furnish it.
so you’re completely right, they don’t need super advanced stuff. your extensions, as great as they are, are a massive overkill for someone doing interior design 
but a simple wall + windows + doors tool can make miracles for them.
Hi Justin,
You’re correct, one has to click on the ‘Learn’ pull down menu, then ‘App-user guides’ to see what the UI is all about via what looks like a very nice online help menu… 
That is actually what a lot of people get wrong about the Wall plugin. You are right though, they don’t need all the framing details, in fact a lot of designer don’t want this level of detail anyways, they just need the basic walls and windows and doors, hence the “NO FRAMING” mode:
Without all of the framing though you are still left with a lot of required details (architects and interior designers). You will still want all of the different window and door types as well as the all of the exterior and interior trim options. You will want the ability to modify your exterior cladding and interior gypsum. However, as an interior designer, you probably care less about the estimating module and what actually constitutes the wall, outward (finished) appearance is everything.
I’ll admit, most of the things I know about your plugins are the (almost) daily updates in your various threads, so yeah, in my mind it’s a lot of very specific very detailed technical bits
Look too close for too long and you’ll forget the big picture I guess 
And that is exactly the reason I made Tutorial #62.
You are correct, most of my time these days is spent adding some nit picky detail or feature to the Wall plugin, as requested by a power user. Not to say that these details are not important but to some one who just wants to quickly throw up walls it is too much too soon. They quickly become overwhelmed and alienated.
And that is also why is important to understand what exactly it is that the user base is wanting or requesting. I think the really tricky thing is providing a solution that is both tailored to everyone’s needs but flexible enough to also meet at least 80% of the user base’s requirements.
Simple but Complete, two conflicting requirements of any good BIM extension in SketchUp.
Not sure I agree with this. SketchUp is currently positioned pretty well from a pricing standpoint against its competition. You’re talking about more than doubling the cost of the program for people to get “BIM…ish” functions. For reference, a Revit LT license is $540/year.
I do think these functions would make more sense either as an extension or as some other kind of modeling mode, or at LEAST in a “BIM Modeling Toolbar” that can be toggled on an off. Rhino and Fusion 360 both approach this in pretty efficient ways
I don’t really know the AutoDesk stuff that well, but get a little exposure with an occasional seminar here and there. I’ve seen Grasshopper inside Rhino for parametric modeling, and Rhino inside Revit for breaking out of Revit’s BIM constraints. By comparison, Medeek inside SketchUp is the other way around by having the general modeler the master program and BIM a special tool leveraged off of it. I think I like the latter better in general principal. Live components in SU look an awful lot like Grasshopper, but I think Grasshopper is way more powerful from what I’ve seen. Again, this is just an outsider’s impression.
Well no, doesnt have to be studio at this price. Right now it’s the price of su+vray, remove vray, you’re free to price it as you want
Well, in Archicad I had developed my own GDL framing objects, and yes, I could model a technically correct complex framing panel in seconds, so I have no intention of discrediting your significant achievements. My “lazy” concerns go beyond plugins, SketchUp or even CAD. They relate to a generation of designers who have come through college and seem to have little understanding of what they are supposed to deliver beyond automated functions. The basics of what, where & why are being lost to mindless automation. I recently received a project to work on that contained so many basic technical errors I contemplated walking away from it. Your example of an internal stud wall is great, but the same approach with an external wall that is clad with masonry, has a cavity, internal service voids, splayed internal reveals, lintels, flashings, thermal breaks, damp-proof courses, seals, wall ties etc, etc, and you should then appreciate why a five click solution will never work for anything other than the most basic assembly. As designers we have a duty to deliver information that is not only useful to the builder, but also needs to be technically competent before we get into a cycle of ripping everything down after ten years because of damp, rot and structural issues. So, in my humble opinion automation is great if you know why you are using it, it’s not so good if someone thinks their solution is correct because they found a plugin that kind of does the job in 10 seconds.
Well said and I do agree with you in that too many of the up and coming generation are too reliant on canned solutions without a fundamental understanding of the basics.
I am technically a mechanical engineer by trade, that is what I went to school for and my formal education was a BSME at BYU. As such when I decided to venture into wood engineering for residential structures I had to go back to the basics and learn an entirely new field of engineering. My previous structural work in aerospace tooling was primarily with steel and aluminum exclusively.
Luckily for me instead of finding canned solutions right off the bat I was instead directed to “Design of Wood Structures” by Donald Breyer. I literally read the entire book and after a couple months I had a fairly solid understanding of the basics with regards to most wood engineering and I was well on my way.
It wasn’t until later that I realized that there were a lot of canned solutions and software out there that would save me considerable time in “running the numbers”. I also created my own spreadsheet and web based calculators, some of which are still utilized and available on my web site (for other engineers) today. The funny thing is the first engineering jobs I took on locally were all hand calculated and written out in long hand by me, old school style on engineering pad. I can remember my writing hand getting quite sore after scribling engineering calcs for a couple hours straight. However I quickly realized that such an approach was futile if I was ever going to make a decent living at what I did. The answer of course was automation. One of the my more favorite canned apps was Weyerhauser’s Forte program, simple to use but flexible enough for most typical/basic calculations of beams, headers, joists and posts and best of all it was free.
The problem with such apps is that garbage in equals garbage out. Unless you know how to use the apps and understand what the various parameters and options mean then you probably have no business trying to do your own engineering and should obviously hire an engineer who does. Honestly one of my biggest pet peeves is non-engineers who email me and try to get me to teach them how to do engineering using my spreadsheets and apps on my web site. How am I supposed to teach them how to use my calculators with what has taken me months or even years to learn?
The same applies in the design world. If you know how a structure fundamentally goes together then automation is the answer for any design professional who wants to make a successful living at it. If you don’t know what you are doing then your end result will be bad regardless of what product or how much automation you use, that much is clear.
Ultimately the devil is in the details and that is why my extensions have some much complexity and so many parameters, almost to a fault. Structures and buildings are actually quite complicated, even residential structures. However, my extensions will not teach one how to flash a window opening or correctly apply torch down roofing on a flat roof/floor. Details such as these will be found in a carefully prepared “Detail Drawings” and generally are not found within a BIM model of a residential structure. Nick Sonder has a number of such details that are literally quite amazing. “Level of Detail” (LOD) is a very important concept when modeling a structure and it is something that I have given years of thought to.
So yes, automation has both a good and a potentially bad side, but overwhelming for the design professional that knows their craft I would say these programs and apps are a boon, and in today’s fast paced world they are literally a requirement.
When I said five clicks, one click to select the wall tool, two clicks to select the end points of the wall, one more click to select the door tool and then one final click to place the door in the wall. At that point one may want to further customize the wall with some brick cladding (veneer) with air gap or perhaps just an external wainscot of brick. The door might be adjusted to a 3/4 glass with mullins. This is the beauty of a well crafted parametric extension, you can then fine tune or adjust the design to meet your requirements as needed. I strongly agree to disagree, extensions that have been carefully crafted for certain applications can in fact be used to create quite complicated and accurate models, well beyond the basic assemblies that you insinuate.
The Wall plugin alone has now over 66 tutorial videos and 300+ updates or feature adds, I left basic behind about five years ago:
I don’t think there is any disagreement between us. You are quite correct, complex structures can be automated, but there is that fundamental concern that you can’t cover every possible arrangement and the problems comes, as you alluded to above, when a user thinks they can do a job with a couple of clicks without understanding what they are creating.
Honestly it makes me somewhat nervous when a non-engineer attempts to use my calculators and spreadsheets on my website. Similarly, you seem uncomfortable with uneducated or amateur designers or even DIYers trying to put together a complicated design for a structure using the tools of the trade. So in a sense, we have similar concerns.
However it has been my experience that you cannot completely control who uses your software or tools. In a perfect world only experienced designers and licensed architects would use these tools and all others would defer to these experts for their architectural and structural needs. I don’t mean to derail this thread with my recent posts, but this is actually a very important discussion and I think it should factor into how SketchUp/Trimble proceeds in this regard as they look at the future and direction of SketchUp and it’s target audience.
Does automation “hand hold” an inexperienced designer too much or act as some kind of crutch? I suppose that argument could be made, especially as our software has become increasingly sophisticated and capable. But with that same argument one could then argue that any level of automation is bad and we should go back to drafting tables and T-squares. I don’t think that automation is inherently bad but it should not completely supplant the fundamentals, knowledge and principles that make it all work under the hood. Yes, lazy learners are bad but lazy workers are not, a lazy worker is a smart worker.
Simple … First be consistent between shortcuts in SU and LO… and for both give them the same capability as Autocad… ie the ability to use and keycode combination to define a shortcut…
for example in my Autocad Shortcuts I use
L = single Line
LL = double Line
LLL= Layer Dialogue Menu
The significance is I am only using one key to establish 3 levels of priority for commands that all stat with the Letter “L” much quicker (less finger stretching) and intuitive that ALT L Shift L CNTL L etc.
of course you can also use multiple letters to more closely match the action eg, DL dinension Linear.. DR dimension Radial etc
One of the reasons I transferred from Archicad to Sketchup was the way models are put together; you can, with an appropriate LOD, create a “digital twin” which can account for all the critical features that should be present. As I said previously, I have no problem with competent parties deriving benefit of plugins to speed that process. My concerns transcend SketchUp. When respected designers produce section drawings from the likes of Revit with fundamental design flaws, we need to ask where the design process is going wrong? Is it big brand software giving a false sense of security as to the drawing output, or education systems are failing in their teaching of technical issues, or perhaps more fundamentally some designers are so embedded in a zero-G virtual world with no site experience they don’t understand how a building should be put together? None of these rest squarely on Trimble’s shoulders, but coupled with good education and the beautifully simplistic process of modelling in SketchUp, they do have the potential to promote good practice to the next generation of designers before they become blinded by the smoke and mirrors of “specialist” software.
Thanks for sharing your results here @JustinTSE and also for the follow-up comments - very interesting to read.
