You would need to know some dimension in the imported image. Then you can resize the image to the correct dimensions.
So far I’ve seen lots of griping about Digital Globe but no one has made any suggestions for alternatives.
It’s not a matter of how much they were charging. The thing is, Google has chosen to remove access to the Maps API. It’s just not an option anymore due to Google’s business decisions.
I’m sure the SketchUp team would have preferred to stick with Google if they could. They wouldn’t have had to make changes to the Location stuff and they wouldn’t have had to deal with a bunch of upset users.
Resizing imported imagery is not nearly as accurate as the previous solution was. I don’t think it is the user community’s responsibility to solve Trimble’s problem. We are identifying that there is a problem. As paying customers, we expect Trimble to address our “griping.”
Instead of trying to import low quality Digital Globe or Google data, ideally I would have a fast way of retrieving the high quality data offered by our Local Government GIS Server (typical of what we get in Australia & NZ) - Contours, aerial imagery, property parcel boundaries, underground services, etc. It’s all free and very high quality.
It’s easy to import the DWG data into sketchup ( not the KMZ or SHP…hopefully one day!) but the Aerial imagery doesn’t come in with a georeferenced point or scale, so unsure how to get it lined up accurately.
I also think im missing some of the data eg colours for lines, asset classes, etc. (not sure if that’s the case…difficult to know)
I don’t suppose anybody could take a look for me?
(The data extract option is the Spanner icon in the toolbar and you will need to email a request to download the data but it’s automated and takes moments)
You’ll also notice the DWG comes in at a long distance from the Sketchup model origin. It is correctly located, but I’m unable to model with it unless I move the axis. This presents a problem when exchanging drawings with professional engineers, architects etc. because moving the axis means I’ve broken the consistent element in our designs and this can lead to catastrophic errors in setting out new buildings, roads, etc.
Is there a particular extension or workflow I should be using to bring in GIS-style data to Sketchup Pro? I’d love to know!
Thanks!
Hmmm, I was sure this facility was functional in a number of versions over a number of years. Apart from that, there is a lot more to the software than that feature.
Unless, of course, you are completely new to SketchUp and you installed it in the last few days for the first time, you probably owe SketchUp a thanks. The customary gesture would be to buy a Pro licence, apart from the reasons that may arise from the terms of use you agree to when installing.
I’m not saying that it isn’t a pain, I’m also not saying that I’m quite happy with the way things have panned out so far. What I am saying is that there are alternative methods available to arrive at the intended result. What I am saying is that there are persons with legitimate gripes, and then there are persons that have weak arguments.
The Google Earth 3D terrain data is (was) probably good for preliminary work, however I would suggest you work from the information obtained from a registered Land Surveyor (not sure what the term may be in different parts of the world) when venturing any further than that.
These errors are created because of floating point precision, if I’m not mistaken.
Often in these cases the team working on the project could select a project coordinate system that is not the same as the geo reference. That solves the issue for most software and increases accuracy for everysoftware as the margin of error is greatly reduced.
However if you cannot or will not do it, you should then work with at least two models here, though 3 is the ideal number.
1st Model - Original Coordinates:
Insert the referenced base drawing/model on the correct origin coordinates, even if you’re not able to draw in it.
Collect all the geometry you need and make a component.
Right click that component and on the context menu choose “Save As…”
This will create a file which corresponds to that component.
2nd Model - Intermediary Xref Component
The saved component above, should never be worked upon, it’s just a proxy for several different models.
You can save it on a folder which has this kind of components. I name it simply “Xrefs” folder
3rd Model - Working Model
Start a Sketchup model from scratch and import the model you saved in the Xrefs folderT
Save this model into the working folder and use it at will.
When your work with this model is done and you want to share it with correct origin, right click on the imported component, and “Save As…” into the Xrefs folder, overwriting the existing xref.
Go to 1st Model and right click on the component and “Reload”.
You will have the correct model, at the correct origin.
I have no doubt SketchUp is very useful to architects and others who have broad based graphic design needs. I only use SketchUp for one very limited purpose that depends entirely on its interface with Google Earth quality images. To be more specific I use it in conjunction with a product called Array-O-Matic to fit solar panels to Google Earth images of roofs. Array-O-Matic’s facility only works with SketchUp. They have not integrated it with any other graphic design tool as far as I know. The sudden and unexpected change in image quality renders SketchUp completely useless for my very specific need and I know of no other substitute.
As I said, I would be willing to pay for SketchUp or any other product that does what I need it to do. SketchUp’s one time license fee of $695 for lifetime use of SketchUp Pro is completely reasonable and I intended to buy it until this problem came up. I didn’t buy one earlier because I worked for a company that provided the tools I used to do my job. But I recently started up my own company and planned to continue using the SketchUp + Array-O-Matic combination as I did with my former employer. I suspect there are many people in the Solar business who are in the same boat and SketchUp is going to miss out on a lot of business by switching to the low quality junk their new geo location facility uses.
Hope the word gets up to SketchUp’s decision makers.
As of yesterday I am not using SketchUp at all unless and until they go back to using Google Earth quality images. If they go back to a decent image quality I will buy a license.
I decided to cross post from another thread since this thread looks like the appropriate location to provide feedback to Trimble about the upcoming change:
I also use SketchUp Pro professionally for residential and commercial Solar Development. I am the design manager for our company and I am now actively looking for a replacement software for SketchUp as this is an unacceptable change.
The recent change to the geo-location image quality significantly reduces the functionality of SketchUp for our office use. The image quality looks embarrassingly bad and we will cannot use it for client presentation as we previously had. The bad imagery also makes it much less functional in our design process as we cannot accurately view buildings and locations. Itdan84 accurately captures image quality issues.
As I understand it, Trimble decided not to pay for Google’s satellite image quality and has instead gone with a cheaper and significantly worse satellite imagery provider. I have read claims saying that this is on Google’s end and that Google Maps API ‘is not available for any price.’ I haven’t been able to find any information where that claim is coming from, but clearly the API is available.
Google Maps API for a price:
I hope that Trimble will recognize that this is unacceptable to many users and look to correct this as soon as possible. There are a small handful of PV design software options that all use the same Google Maps satellite imagery. We have been using SketchUp with plugins but will move to another software option if the imagery quality stays at the current level.
While Microsoft’s Bing imagery is less up to date compared to Google in many areas, it would be preferable to current image quality. There have been comments about using government GIS maps, this could be another functional work aground, ESRI is the provider to the assessor GIS maps in my area.
I just tried to look up a lon,lat and it wouldn’t work I used the exact lon, lat in Google Maps and it worked fine!
I sure don’t like the new imagery I tried to insert before & after images, but was unable to insert the images.
This is a HUGE loss for SketchUp. This greatly inhibits how we are able to use the program. The geolocation, imagery, and terrain are such a big part of the use of SketchUp. Without this, the program is not nearly as useful and the imagery is unacceptable. Clients, users, and people have come to expect a certain quality of imagery and usefulness of the maps and terrain, and now it is not available at all! This very negatively impacts a lot of peoples business and the product they are able to put out. PLEASE do whatever is needed to get back the google geolocation and maps aspect of SketchUp that we all know and love to use, even if it is only available on the paid version.
Click the link for Google Maps’ pricing plans. Obviously Google Maps could be put back in for next to nothing. SketchUp has screwed us to save pennies that I would be willing to pay.
I thought I did this as a reply to @FrankMcIntyre1951’s post above, but I guess I hit the wrong “Reply” button to start this. So I added this paragraph to maintain continuity.
I did as you suggested: I clicked the link. I followed the track for the paid use case which (since SketchUp Make is free, but Trimble charges for PRO - thus likely matching what Google describes as “Freemium”) is likely what Trimble would need, and was presented a choice between Standard and Premium plans
Only apps that are installed through the Andriod/IOS apps stores can use the Standard plan - so that doesn’t apply. Which leaves the Premium plan.
The suggested action for the Premium is “Contact Us” - no mention of pricing.
So please tell me: How is it obvious that Google Maps could be put back in for “next to nothing”?
The way I read Google’s plan, web based apps that charge a fee can access 150,000 free Google images per day and pay 50cents per every additional 1,000 images per day after that. I call that “next to nothing”. I can’t imagine loading more than 1,000 images per year. So if I had to pay 50 cents a year for that resource I couldn’t care less.
Your numbers seem to come from Google’s “Standard” plan, but I think Trimble would have to use the “Premium” plan - with pricing only available after you “Contact Us”.
Additionally, the pricing you reference is for the “Google Places API Web Service”, but it’s possible (from my admittedly brief acquaintance with how Google prices various map related things) that Trimble would ALSO need the “Google Static Maps API” and the “Google Maps Elevation API” which (under the Standard plan - which Trimble likely can’t use) have much lower (2,500) daily free access limits.
So I’m fairly convinced that we can’t know how much paying for Google Maps data might cost Trimble. Except that it’s likely fair to say it would cost them significantly more than what they paid under the buyout agreement.
(I’m now going even more speculative)
I’m guessing someone at Trimble is hard at work trying to find a solution that is either (a) something they can afford within their existing financial constraints or (b) something they can pass on to Pro users only at reasonable cost.
I don’t think I need words to describe the difference.
And what really pisses me off is they didn’t fully disclose the change. They may have said there was going to be a change. They didn’t disclose that the change would effectively disable the primary feature of the application that people like me need.
