This book review is not a review. It is a chapter-by-chapter summary. If Slashdot is going to do this "book review" section, could we please get some reviews? I know that most people don't read book reviews anyway (most Slashdotters aren't the literary type), but this kind of thing needs to be pointed out so that we can keep up the quality of news/submissions.
What we really need to know is whether this book sucks or doesn't, how well the material is presented, and what is lacking from an expert's perspective.
It's barely even a chapter summary! The descriptions tell you, for example, that the chapters contain something "AWESOME", without hinting as to what that might even be. I'm half-surprised it didn't just come out and say "You'll have to buy the book to find out!"
The perhaps failed point that I was trying to make was that literary-type people have heavier exposure to books and know what book reviews are or are supposed to be. Most people here have their heads glued to the computer screen and aren't sitting in an armchair reading all day. It's a completely different "culture." The literary type is more academic, so he is going to pick up on this kind of thing, but he is not going to have the time or energy to be as technical as your average Slashdotter.
This final chapter I really enjoyed since I like to play with layouts. The layout module is bundled as part of SketchUp Pro and is introduced in this final chapter for those who wish to explore the free trial before committing to Pro. You will learn how to bring together SketchUp models and artistic or rendered output into a screen presentation or printed portfolio, adding borders, text and dimensions.
Layout is bundled as part of SketchUp Pro and is introduced in this final chapter for those who wish to explore the free trial before committing to Pro. You will learn how to bring together SketchUp models and artistic or rendered output into a screen presentation or printed portfolio, adding borders, text and dimensions.
Either awful copy-paste, or awful slashvertisement. I suspect someone with an interest of selling a lot of these books, trying to push favorable reviews as many places as possible.
Of course we don't read the articles here, so how could we have known? Maybe plagiarized is too strong, since they did give the source and they did paraphrase. But I think it qualifies.
Software architecture isn't like designing buildings or machinery. It's misleading and unproductive to think that it is
* Weinberg's Second Law: If Builders Built Buildings The Way Programmers Write Programs, Then The First Woodpecker That Came Along Would Destroy Civilization.
I do architectural design and SU is not the answer to every problem. If you're doing multi-million dollar designs, heck, spend a couple bucks and use programs that are easier and more powerful. Sure, it can be fun to try to learn and navigate your way through the program, but give me my architectural design software with ease and simplicity and powerful photo-realistic images in a fraction of the time of SU. Play with free. Work with paid for programs.
True, but you are not the target market for this tool.
Ahh, but the GP is the target market for the book (as am I). And those in the target market know that Sketchup is the wrong tool. Therefore the book is a bit of a waste as it's advocating the wrong tool for the job.
That said, Sketchup does have a very valuable role in the architectural design process, and can be a useful tool for archviz, but really as an intermediary step, or for schematic uses.
Sketchup does have a very valuable role in the architectural design process, and can be a useful tool for archviz, but really as an intermediary step, or for schematic uses.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this too. While I agree all architects, not just the poor ones, are the target market for this book, people just need to stop using SketchUp, period. If you have access to quality design/BIM software such as Autodesk's Revit, SketchUp can only slow down and complicate your process. When I do space/mass modeling in a true architectural software, I get real time area and volume updates. I can apply materials to the walls that display properly on the face as well as showin
Oh, I agree, Revit/Archicad are much more robust solutions. But in early massing phases, they're waaaay too much overhead for what's needed.
And believe it or not, there are a lot of firms out there not using BIM (like mine, but that's a whole different story), and for them Sketchup is the way to introduce digital 3D into the workflow.
Of course, just because a program costs thousands of $ doesn't mean it's any good either. I'm short on examples, but in my experience the more expensive the software the worse it is. AutoCAD and ClearQuest are the only ones coming to mind now, as I think I've mentally blocked out the worst experiences. There are exceptions to this of course. Fluent is pretty good.
But I agree in general that if you're doing professional work, your software choices are expanded because cost is not an issue.
I'm short on examples, but in my experience the more expensive the software the worse it is.
I can give a good example where $1000 is well worth it. I've been using Chief Architect for almost 13 years. It is stunning. It allows me to design real working drawings and do what SU does but a whole lot more and a whole lot easier. The article is correct in saying that SU can making a great looking image with a "simple design", but it will take more than a little bit of time to do the same with a complex design.
Ultimately, Google designed this so people would help populate their 3D Earth with build
Ultimately, Google designed this so people would help populate their 3D Earth with buildings...
Not to nitpick or anything (ah heck, who am I kidding, I love to nitpick) but Google bought SketchUp when they acquired @Last Software, they didn't design it.
I do architectural design and SU is not the answer to every problem. If you're doing multi-million dollar designs, heck, spend a couple bucks and use programs that are easier and more powerful. Sure, it can be fun to try to learn and navigate your way through the program, but give me my architectural design software with ease and simplicity and powerful photo-realistic images in a fraction of the time of SU. Play with free. Work with paid for programs.
Sometimes, you only need to create a design once, even on a paid project. For example, I was recently creating three dimensional views of an object for a patent application and used Sketchup because it was quick, easy, didn't need to be textured, and wasn't worth the purchase of a commercial program that I'd only use once.
Of course, your mileage may vary - doing many architectural designs like you do would quickly pay for the expense of a commercial program.
I've seen plenty of multi-million dollar designs at major firms that started in SketchUp (I work as a freelance architectural renderer, and am often handed said SketchUp files as part of my reference material). Yes, at some point you have to make a construction set and/or BIM, which SketchUp is not capable of, and when things start getting really detailed and the major strokes are locked down you probably want to switch to CAD or Revit, but for concept development, and to a lesser extent design development
Robin de Jongh is a consulting engineer and designer who has successfully used SketchUp for multi-million-pound new developments, and a whole bunch of smaller projects, from steel staircases to new product prototypes.
When did they start describing buildings by weight? Because those are certainly some heavy buildings.
When did they start describing buildings by weight?
Pretty much since we started doing the calculations. The Empire State Building [newyorktra...tation.com], Sears Tower ( now Willis Tower) [visit-chic...linois.com] and the CN Tower [worsleyschool.net] (ok, not a true building in the strictest sense) all have weight measurements.
Because those are certainly some heavy buildings.
Considering the Empire State Building weighs 730,000,000 pounds, those are small buildings.
My fellow Americans are so stupid. This is a British thing. We measure buildings by stories, they do it by weight. The better question is why doesn't the summary say multi-million-kilogram?
It's plagiarized from the Amazon product description (which is probably taken from the back of the book or something), as pointed out by dalerb in a comment below.
What we've got here is a table of contents with a few sentences giving a teaser-style description of what that chapter contains. And then a conclusion literally (in the literal sense of the word literally) begging people to buy the book.
Or, to put it another way, a review of this review:
Frankly, when I saw this article has 10+ paragraphs, I thought "this thing is full of fluff and will bore me to death." But to my surprise, it could be skimmed so quickly that I didn't have time to be bored, and that's exactly what an ADHD-type guy like me understands best. So, without further ado, I'll make a brief presentation of the review that will enlighten your path to fast, easy and breathtaking... moving on to other things.
Introduction:
There's a badly formatted section that tries to give you the technical details about who wrote the book and stuff.
Chapters:
Then, one by one, as if filling out the required length in a book report for 7th grade, each chapter in the book is described, but not in a way that tells you any more than what you'd get by just reading the titles.
Conclusion:
I'm a Slashdot reader, and I've read book reviews here before, but I gotta tell you, even though most of the time they're really poor, this one is exceptionally weak, for the simple fact that it tells you less than you'd get from simply looking at the book's entry on the publisher's web site. Or on Amazon, for that matter. If you want to learn whether this book is worthwhile, please check somewhere else. I guarantee you won't throw your money away; because I know you, and you're not the kind of person to just go and do that with your money on a whim. Right?
Slashdot book reviews have been weak chapter-by-chapter "synopses" for years now. They simply do not have any standards beyond (perhaps) word count. Best just to exclude them from your front page.
!'m an architect, and I've worked with paid software before, but I gotta tell you, the free applications are most of the time way better than the paid ones,
You do realize the second half of that sentence makes it clear the first half is a lie... right?
I still think the best 3D modeling software is trueSpace, which is now available for free at CNET.com.
They used to charge over $500 for the software, but Microsoft bought them out and released it for free. You can get it from http://download.cnet.com/TrueSpace/3000-6677_4-10187286.html
Holy crap, I was expecting some similarities, but you're right: the author just ripped-off the whole thing.
Summary:
Chapter 1 – Quick Start Tutorial
This chapter is a fast forward for those impatient to get to the realistic sketchup scenes. Here you'll find out how to model the scene, fix the lights, add textures, background, and make a quick render in Kerkythea.
Original:
Chapter 1: Quickstart Tutorial
Photo Real Gallery Scene - This chapter is an immediate fix for those who are impatient to get photo-rea
First, the reviewer writes he was reluctant to read through "400+" pages of fluff; Amazon's website says it's 408 pages. So why does the summary state it's 113?
Second, if the reviewer guarantees the book is so worthwhile then why does it only have a rating of 5/10?
Other people have already pointed out several ways that this review is, to put it nicely, lacking. I'd like to mention two more important points.
1. Hyperlinks...do you use them?
Reviewer writes
(I know you will love this part of the book, so I got a sample of this chapter from the publisher for you guys – See it Here)
Yeah, see it where? Did you (reviewer and/or editor) do the most cursory of read-throughs to see if there were any blatant instances of "click on this text that's not a hyperlink but really
Hang on... I checked the "Disable Advertising" checkbox which Slashdot conveniently provides "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm pretty sure this version is compatible with linux, assuming you have a scanner that works and the patience to scan in each page.
Personally I would just sit down somewhere comfortable and read the book without going through linux, though...
Not to be nit picky, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we really need to know is whether this book sucks or doesn't, how well the material is presented, and what is lacking from an expert's perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
It's barely even a chapter summary! The descriptions tell you, for example, that the chapters contain something "AWESOME", without hinting as to what that might even be. I'm half-surprised it didn't just come out and say "You'll have to buy the book to find out!"
Speaking of literary... (Score:2)
I don't think a book about using free software is all that "literary", but maybe that's just me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most technica
Copy-Paste advertisement. What the hell? (Score:2)
Hijacking an early post, because I am disgusted.
Comparing Chapter 11 reviews:
From TFR:
This final chapter I really enjoyed since I like to play with layouts. The layout module
is bundled as part of SketchUp Pro and is introduced in this final chapter for those who wish to explore the free trial before committing to Pro. You will learn how to bring together SketchUp models and artistic or rendered output into a screen presentation or printed portfolio, adding borders, text and dimensions.
From Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/SketchUp-7-1-Architectural-Visualization-Beginners/dp/1847199461/ [amazon.com]
Layout
is bundled as part of SketchUp Pro and is introduced in this final chapter for those who wish to explore the free trial before committing to Pro. You will learn how to bring together SketchUp models and artistic or rendered output into a screen presentation or printed portfolio, adding borders, text and dimensions.
Either awful copy-paste, or awful slashvertisement. I suspect someone with an interest of selling a lot of these books, trying to push favorable reviews as many places as possible.
Alternate version (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Alternate version plagiarized (Score:2)
The true alternate version is on the author's blog, which shows that this is just a paraphrase of the author's own blog post.
http://provelo.co.uk/2010/05/sketchup-7-1-for-architectural-visualization/ [provelo.co.uk]
Of course we don't read the articles here, so how could we have known? Maybe plagiarized is too strong, since they did give the source and they did paraphrase. But I think it qualifies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Watching this thread with a supply of "whooshes" on hand for deployment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Software architecture isn't like designing buildings or machinery. It's misleading and unproductive to think that it is
* Weinberg's Second Law: If Builders Built Buildings The Way Programmers Write Programs, Then The First Woodpecker That Came Along Would Destroy Civilization.
Re:Diagrams will never make up for real code. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free is not always better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free is not always better (Score:4, Informative)
True, but you are not the target market for this tool.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but the GP is the target market for the book (as am I). And those in the target market know that Sketchup is the wrong tool. Therefore the book is a bit of a waste as it's advocating the wrong tool for the job.
That said, Sketchup does have a very valuable role in the architectural design process, and can be a useful tool for archviz, but really as an intermediary step, or for schematic uses.
Re: (Score:1)
Sketchup does have a very valuable role in the architectural design process, and can be a useful tool for archviz, but really as an intermediary step, or for schematic uses.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this too. While I agree all architects, not just the poor ones, are the target market for this book, people just need to stop using SketchUp, period. If you have access to quality design/BIM software such as Autodesk's Revit, SketchUp can only slow down and complicate your process. When I do space/mass modeling in a true architectural software, I get real time area and volume updates. I can apply materials to the walls that display properly on the face as well as showin
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree, Revit/Archicad are much more robust solutions. But in early massing phases, they're waaaay too much overhead for what's needed.
And believe it or not, there are a lot of firms out there not using BIM (like mine, but that's a whole different story), and for them Sketchup is the way to introduce digital 3D into the workflow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, just because a program costs thousands of $ doesn't mean it's any good either. I'm short on examples, but in my experience the more expensive the software the worse it is. AutoCAD and ClearQuest are the only ones coming to mind now, as I think I've mentally blocked out the worst experiences. There are exceptions to this of course. Fluent is pretty good.
But I agree in general that if you're doing professional work, your software choices are expanded because cost is not an issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that as bad as AutoCAD is it's still better than the freeware tools.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm short on examples, but in my experience the more expensive the software the worse it is.
I can give a good example where $1000 is well worth it. I've been using Chief Architect for almost 13 years. It is stunning. It allows me to design real working drawings and do what SU does but a whole lot more and a whole lot easier. The article is correct in saying that SU can making a great looking image with a "simple design", but it will take more than a little bit of time to do the same with a complex design.
Ultimately, Google designed this so people would help populate their 3D Earth with build
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, Google designed this so people would help populate their 3D Earth with buildings...
Not to nitpick or anything (ah heck, who am I kidding, I love to nitpick) but Google bought SketchUp when they acquired @Last Software, they didn't design it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do architectural design and SU is not the answer to every problem. If you're doing multi-million dollar designs, heck, spend a couple bucks and use programs that are easier and more powerful. Sure, it can be fun to try to learn and navigate your way through the program, but give me my architectural design software with ease and simplicity and powerful photo-realistic images in a fraction of the time of SU. Play with free. Work with paid for programs.
Sometimes, you only need to create a design once, even on a paid project. For example, I was recently creating three dimensional views of an object for a patent application and used Sketchup because it was quick, easy, didn't need to be textured, and wasn't worth the purchase of a commercial program that I'd only use once.
Of course, your mileage may vary - doing many architectural designs like you do would quickly pay for the expense of a commercial program.
Re: (Score:2)
multi-million-pound?! (Score:4, Funny)
Robin de Jongh is a consulting engineer and designer who has successfully used SketchUp for multi-million-pound new developments, and a whole bunch of smaller projects, from steel staircases to new product prototypes.
When did they start describing buildings by weight? Because those are certainly some heavy buildings.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pretty much since we started doing the calculations. The Empire State Building [newyorktra...tation.com], Sears Tower ( now Willis Tower) [visit-chic...linois.com] and the CN Tower [worsleyschool.net] (ok, not a true building in the strictest sense) all have weight measurements.
Because those are certainly some heavy buildings.
Considering the Empire State Building weighs 730,000,000 pounds, those are small buildings.
And yes, I get the whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
when they're trying to figure out if the library will sink with and without the book load.
Re: (Score:2)
My fellow Americans are so stupid. This is a British thing. We measure buildings by stories, they do it by weight. The better question is why doesn't the summary say multi-million-kilogram?
Re: (Score:2)
We measure buildings by stories
Are you the same fools who start counting your floors at 0 instead of 1? (The first floor in America being the "ground floor" in Britain.)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to be plagiarized (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless the submitter is this author, this review has been plagiarized from this site:
http://archtopia.com/2010/05/22/book-review-sketchup-7-1-for-architectural-visualization-beginners-guide/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hint: They are the same person.
Re: (Score:2)
I also like how the one comment on that blog post is a link spammer, and the author doesn't even notice and instead posts a pleasant reply.
Re: (Score:1)
Its probably actually the books arthur spaming it all over.
Re: (Score:1)
It's plagiarized from the Amazon product description (which is probably taken from the back of the book or something), as pointed out by dalerb in a comment below.
Wait, where's the review? (Score:5, Interesting)
What we've got here is a table of contents with a few sentences giving a teaser-style description of what that chapter contains. And then a conclusion literally (in the literal sense of the word literally) begging people to buy the book.
Or, to put it another way, a review of this review:
Frankly, when I saw this article has 10+ paragraphs, I thought "this thing is full of fluff and will bore me to death." But to my surprise, it could be skimmed so quickly that I didn't have time to be bored, and that's exactly what an ADHD-type guy like me understands best. So, without further ado, I'll make a brief presentation of the review that will enlighten your path to fast, easy and breathtaking... moving on to other things.
Introduction:
There's a badly formatted section that tries to give you the technical details about who wrote the book and stuff.
Chapters:
Then, one by one, as if filling out the required length in a book report for 7th grade, each chapter in the book is described, but not in a way that tells you any more than what you'd get by just reading the titles.
Conclusion:
I'm a Slashdot reader, and I've read book reviews here before, but I gotta tell you, even though most of the time they're really poor, this one is exceptionally weak, for the simple fact that it tells you less than you'd get from simply looking at the book's entry on the publisher's web site. Or on Amazon, for that matter. If you want to learn whether this book is worthwhile, please check somewhere else. I guarantee you won't throw your money away; because I know you, and you're not the kind of person to just go and do that with your money on a whim. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot book reviews have been weak chapter-by-chapter "synopses" for years now. They simply do not have any standards beyond (perhaps) word count. Best just to exclude them from your front page.
RE: (Score:3, Funny)
You do realize the second half of that sentence makes it clear the first half is a lie ... right?
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't notice the 'not' operator at the beginning of his sentence?
Try trueSpace (Score:1, Informative)
I still think the best 3D modeling software is trueSpace, which is now available for free at CNET.com.
They used to charge over $500 for the software, but Microsoft bought them out and released it for free. You can get it from http://download.cnet.com/TrueSpace/3000-6677_4-10187286.html
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting for 3D modeling. Looks terrible for architectural work.
This is the Amazon Product Description (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, I was expecting some similarities, but you're right: the author just ripped-off the whole thing.
Summary:
Original:
I'm confused (Score:2)
First, the reviewer writes he was reluctant to read through "400+" pages of fluff; Amazon's website says it's 408 pages. So why does the summary state it's 113?
Second, if the reviewer guarantees the book is so worthwhile then why does it only have a rating of 5/10?
Two things to pile on (Score:2)
Other people have already pointed out several ways that this review is, to put it nicely, lacking. I'd like to mention two more important points.
1. Hyperlinks...do you use them?
Reviewer writes
Yeah, see it where? Did you (reviewer and/or editor) do the most cursory of read-throughs to see if there were any blatant instances of "click on this text that's not a hyperlink but really
Disable Advertising... (Score:3, Funny)
Hang on... I checked the "Disable Advertising" checkbox which Slashdot conveniently provides "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot."
Why did this article still show up?