the ∞ SketchUp Wish List



As a workaround: Have you tried temporary upscaling the objects (say 100 times) and downscaling after the boolean operations?
Solid tools could use an update indeed. To name just a few:

  • keep the uvs intact after doing the bools. At the moment, if you have objects that change the minimal xyz point (world) of the object, the uv can move (not nice if you textured an object correctly and have to redo the uvs again).
  • no renaming of the objects - just keep the original name.


I am doing that right at this moment. Though my whole thing is that from a discrete logic perspective a solid operation on solid objects should output solid objects.


I think the features for 2020 are also already decided by now, even if not all implemented yet. Developing software takes time!


How about 2025 wish list then? :slight_smile:


You’d have to ask the SketchUp team. Anyhow I think it’s a bit confusing when threads change names and there end up being duplicated ones. I think we had two SketchUp 2018 wishlists, of wish one was the old one being renamed.


Actually, THIS thread was one of the 2018 wishlists, renamed on November 15, 2017 from it’s 2018 original name. The other one was:

I agree that wish lists shouldn’t be ongoing by renaming. At some point, things listed early on the list will have been implemented.

I’d like to see only 1 2020 wish list, created on the day 2019 is released.



If there are duplicated lists I think the latter one(s) can be closed, e.g. be us sages, to avoid confusion.

It’s worth mentioning that it’s in many cases best to write a new thread for each distinct request, but for very small requests without a thought through suggestion for an implementation I still think it makes sense to post in these large list threads. Even when writing your own thread it can be useful to link it in these threads so people find it, and since it may be related to feature requests listed here.


It has a lock tool… since at least SU7… only for groups and components and for me its good that way… even when locked it keeps its layer and you can turn on/off it using that layer… you can not hide-show group or change the layer while locked…


I agree that BIM elements such as walls, roofs, floors, and foundations probably should be an integral part of SU in order for it to compete against the likes of Revit and others however in the meantime I’m going to try and fill the void with plugins.


Can you not set one of the dimensions to how you want it be and then use the Style tool to change those dimensions you want to be the same…?


I would make a more general request of slabs (at any angle) and profiles. Then you can use intelligent tagging to elaborate their actual purpose (wall, floor, etc). This would preserve SketchUp’s idea of a general purpose modelling tool. Part of it was demoed at the first ever Basecamp (i saw a video of it) in the form of Fat Faces, ie faces with a thickness, and has never made itself, to my big disappointment, into the actual application.


Agree Anssi, keep it generic… last thing I want and interface to do is force me to call things what they are not

water surface = slab
sheet of glass = slab
earth base = slab
etc etc



“Slab” was the first thing that came to my mind, but I really don’t know what the right English generic name for an object that has a flat surface of any size plus a thickness is. In Finnish I would use a word that translates as “board” but it doesn’t sound correct to me.


I’d rather use prism or extrusion for an object that has an arbitrary polygon base extruded along its normal. I’m also a big fan of how SU is a neutral modeling tool that allows you to draw anything, not The Sims on steroids forcing you to only draw conventional architecture. I’m all for making SU more powerful for architecture, but it should still be a generic modeling tool to its core.


The generic nature of SU is what makes it so attractive. I spoken with many people that use architectural products like Revit and Chief Architect and the common theme they always return to is how restrictive those drawing environments are. SketchUp allows one to have total freedom and to model just about anything you can dream up.

However, that freedom and generic nature of the product does not allow it to inherently possess a lot of parametric features found in most architectural software. This is where the plugins come in and fill that gap.

An architect’s dream would be the automation, parametrics and production oriented tools of these other design packages but at the same time retaining the freedom of the SU modeling environment.


It’s been a while since I used ArchiCAD, but my recollection is “Slab” is the word they use to floor type elements (at least in the English version)? And walls are a different entity type, yes?

I agree, I like seeing parametrics being done within the more general modeler that SketchUp is.

Anyone remember SITE architects and BEST Catalog Showrooms from the 1980’s? In SketchUp, you can model a whole building, and then decide to turn it on it’s side. In a BIM program, floors are floors, and walls are a different animal, so you can’t just do that. Maybe that’s a silly example, but it does show how creativity gets boxed in from the start with BIM.


Yes, and Roofs are yet another (Walls are vertical, slabs are horizontal and roofs can be at an angle). Paradoxically, all Slabs are horizontal so you must use a Roof if you want to design a ramp. And there is no separate object for Ceiling, you have to use a Slab.

Revit has a bit different approach, but it makes you stick to predetermined categories even more strictly than Archicad.