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.
Exactly. It's like the idiots who maintain that Duh GIMP is a professional tool. It's so hard to not just laugh in their faces when freetards make this argument. And before someone comes along to say "BUT BUT IT'S FOR AMATEURS!!!" one can just point out programs like Paint.NET that are far easier to use and more powerful than Duh GIMP even for amateurs.
One program that is very hard to learn, and basically useless is Adobe Photoshop. Spent some time to figure it out and it really is unintuitive. Makes Gimp looks like a gem. What do professionals use to make their time worthwhile?
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 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.
I have to ask: Is Chief Architect easier to use because it's easier to use, or because you've been using it for more than a decade?
Conversely, how much of your difficulty occurs from SU working differently than Chief Architect? (I have this problem with PhotoShop and The GIMP. GIMP's interface just drives me nuts.)
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
I use gimp and it's fine for the nerd I am to work on my private photos. I see professionals using photoshop in youtube videos, and frankly photoshop seems way more intuitive, easy to use, etc...
Gimp is fine for me to install on all the pcs of the familhy, but if I made a living with photo retouching etc... I would definitely buy photoshop.
Same applies for any type of software, as long as the professional software is clearly better than the free one.
You see but you do not observe.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"
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:-1, Troll)
Exactly. It's like the idiots who maintain that Duh GIMP is a professional tool. It's so hard to not just laugh in their faces when freetards make this argument. And before someone comes along to say "BUT BUT IT'S FOR AMATEURS!!!" one can just point out programs like Paint.NET that are far easier to use and more powerful than Duh GIMP even for amateurs.
Re: (Score:0)
One program that is very hard to learn, and basically useless is Adobe Photoshop. Spent some time to figure it out and it really is unintuitive. Makes Gimp looks like a gem. What do professionals use to make their time worthwhile?
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:0)
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.
I have to ask: Is Chief Architect easier to use because it's easier to use, or because you've been using it for more than a decade?
Conversely, how much of your difficulty occurs from SU working differently than Chief Architect? (I have this problem with PhotoShop and The GIMP. GIMP's interface just drives me nuts.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
I'll take an analogy: gimp versus photoshop.
I use gimp and it's fine for the nerd I am to work on my private photos. ...
I see professionals using photoshop in youtube videos, and frankly photoshop seems way more intuitive, easy to use, etc
Gimp is fine for me to install on all the pcs of the familhy, but if I made a living with photo retouching etc ... I would definitely buy photoshop.
Same applies for any type of software, as long as the professional software is clearly better than the free one.