Iam using Make2D to process a mesh model.(181887 vertices). While processing it takes all the Ramm from a PC (24GB) and does not respond, lasting almost a hour. I tried this two different ways, 4 views and current view. Both locked the program. I use escape and Rhino closes with saving a RHINO EMERGECY file.
Are there any setting that would help. I did move the file to 0,0,0 also.
Could Make2d be hooked up to use more than one processor?
A bit OT:
If you are on a deadline then you can try to use V5 and the meshtonurbs and make a 2D of that.
(You can set the tolerance lower if you want it to process make2d faster, but check the quality, and remember to set the tolerance back up again!)
Dave,
Can you send the file in to me. Iād like to take a look at it.
Greg
Students spend nights to do this kind of work. Attached PDF shows detailed info.
Please consider this in V6. Thanks.
Lineweights.pdf (589.0 KB)
Imagine we make2D on below models and do these kind of line work. Itās very time consuming.
Hi @GregArden,
As we all know Rhinoceros, mostly thanks to the development of Grasshopper, has gained a strong and wide user base in the AEC industry. The Make2D componentāand therefore the ability to produce 2d documentation from 3d modelsāis key to the further expansion of Rhinocerosā user base in AEC.
It would be great to begin to see a more robust implementation of Make2d that begins to directly address the needs of AEC professionals and the production of good quality documentation.
Section Tools and Visual Arq are a decent attempt at providing the kind of documentation tools that are missing from Rhino, but fall short in many aspects and, at the end of the day, they pretty much boil down to a scripted version of Make2d and therefore suffer from the same shortcomings.
Is there any plan to fully implement a suite of tools in Rhino 6 which will give AEC professionals the opportunity produce industry standard 2d documentation? I think Rhinoceros would greatly benefit from the addition of dedicated tools including title block management, live dynamic 2d view generation from 3d geometry (think ALL other āmanufacturingā related software packages, e.g. Inventor, Solidworks, Catia, Autocad, Creo, etc. etc.), automated view generation and labeling, automated hatching in cut sections, linked leaders for cross referencing drawings, etc.
-GM
KevJim,
Thanks for the nice .pdf explaining the different linetypes you are using. I think generally I am collecting most of the information that is needed to automatically assign the linetypes. ( To be clear I am collecting the information and the information is available using the ON_HiddenLineDrawing class in the Rhino SDK, but I am not currently reworking the Make2d command to take advantage of all this new information. That will be the next step.)
Profile (Red) -
DeepEdge(Yellow) - Curves in the ON_HiddenLineDrawing are labeled as Scene_Silhouette which means that there is a visible surface on one side of the curve and empty space on the other side. I need to identify the outermost profile to be able to distinguish between the Red and Yellow cases. It is interesting in the .pdf the lower curves in the simple block diagram are labled TwoEdge (Cyan) even though there is no explicitly shown ground plane. The ground plane would have to be modeled to get this effect.
OneEdge (Green) - This is a local Silhouette curve that is not a Scene_Silhouette.
TwoEdge ( Cyan) - This is a NonSilhouette _Crease_Edge. Note I am using the connectivity of the model to determine this condition. So I in the simple diagram I and expecting the stairs and the adjoining wall to be booleaned together into a polysurface.
Detail-(Blue) I have no idea what you consider to be ādetailā. I return source information for each curve in the form of an object id and edge or face indicies. There would have to some kind of tagging of edge in the model as detail.
So I have added a bug to my list to identify the outermost Scene_Silhouette http://mcneel.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/RH-29844.
About detail line:
Some examples
But, in the case like, if I only have a stair to draw, I would put line weights on it.
I discussed about this with my friend Sam who made the PDF years ago. Below are his comments.
So it is fantastic that the _make2d command stands to gain strength with its Layering capabilities. First of all I think that because every drawing has some level information that the User only understands I think that if there is a way that we can open up the command and perhaps add a step (if needed) where the user is allowed to select specific regions and designate them accordingly.
In the case of the blue layer, named āDETAILā I use that layer (and all these lineweight Layers) for my drawings of 2D plane drawings as well, such as floor plans and flat cross sectional drawings. In these drawings they are used for small insignificant details like furniture or faucets on a sink ā¦ It is a layer that guarantees that I can designate a linetype even more fine than the finest linewieght giving shape or form. However, as shown in the case of this diagram (which I made 3 or 4 years ago) the stairs are using the 5th Layer named āDETAILā this is to give the drawing more depth. This is where the user input could help. perhaps if there could be a selection process similiar to _Curveboolean where the User could designate special areas to help organize the output layers for _Make2d. A logic for the SDK to understand would be difficult to create automatic however I am never shocked with the development of Rhino3D
I realize that this idea is not perhaps in the right direction, where the idea is to make it simpler and quicker to create a drawing with organized layering. The fact is, When creating a drawing of a 3D object there is not necessarily a set number of layers needed ā¦ there should at least be a way to have a chain of additional layers that are more specific to their condition ā¦
I hope this input helps- Samuel Lewis
Thanks.
Hi Greg,
Very nice work so far on Make 2D!
I would like to add the implementation of a status bar to the list. A simple bar graph on the lower left corner of the interface showing a percentage until compleation would allow the user to see how long the Make 2D command will need to run until competion.
We can then make the decision to cancel or gadge our time accordingly
Let me know what you think 
Andrew Reeder
This is on the list. We now have an architected way for computations to report progress, and the new Make2d computations implement this. There are a couple more layers required to get a complete implementation. The command needs to implement the status reporter and we should have a Rhino user interface element to display the status in a common way. I think we are working on it.
Hi Arden,
My apology to initial comments about make2D, which I think they were not clear enough or not at all to most people, including myself. If you are still working on Make2D or in the future development, I would like to give you more comprehensive information whenever I have resources available.
If you donāt mind, I can send you a physical copy of the book. I just need the address I can send to.
I agree, distinguishing edge curves from the rest helps readability.
And by the way: Technical display modes like āPENā already does this.
3D model:
Spatial Depth Cues - House.3dm (343.7 KB)
But they are not vector format. As you know, when raster images print out largely, itās ugly. It looks unprofessional. In addition, itās hard to change into different color. Usually after making 2d in rhino, put in AI do the editing work. Itās not just stroke type, itās a lot more than that. And did you actually model that? Haha
The point is not to use Technical display modes to substitute Make2D, but to show that McNeel allready has the āknow howā, so maybe they could transfer some of that knowledge over to Make2D.
And yes I modeled it to better compare the illustration to the display mode.
Hello,
Is it possible to add an automatic hatch to the make2d command, for the clipping plane??
Itās great that make 2d is getting overhauled, is there any development in making the 2d drawings dynamic rather than a static snap shot in time?
Probably not with this round. We had hoped that the geometry computations would be lots faster this time around, but it turns out theyāre not fast enough for real-time updating.
As a half-way-house, would it be possible to set up āframesā (akin to the views in Layout) with the same names as Named Views and dictate which Named Views get the Make2D treatment and where those Make2D outputs land, relative to each other? That way, at least creating an updated drawing could be a one click operation. Assign a user-set scaling value to each frame that ortho Make2D views automatically get scaled to.
The fly in that ointment would be updating all the notes, dimensions etc that oneās added to previous versions of the drawing, and whether the old Make2D output got deleted when a new set of views is generated.
Oh dear. I donāt think Iāve worded that very well Whereās my babel fish?..
Maybe using the technical drawing mode could be used for the dynamic part, and then calculate the 2D nurbs stuff in the background/when static?
Adobe acrobat 3d has a rough technical mode that requires no calculations for use (no intersections etc) and I believe we could benefit from a similar approach for large architectural models.
There are 3 statements that were made over the last week here on discourse that I would like to point out [and I paraphase, so anyone feel free to correct me]:
I know Iām repeating myself but producing production drawings inside of Rhino is just not productive.