Hello All,
I’m looking for some courses or specific tutorials that suggest methods-tricks-etc for advanced surfacing in GH, better if combining Rhino and SubD quick surface creation and adjustment.
Any suggestion?
Thanks!
These two channels are great with vast amounts of information across surfaces, advanced methods, subD, etc. I would start here:
And here:
2 Likes
Thank you Michael, that’s some really cool stuff but it seems more focused on architecture.
Do you know if there’s something specific to industrial and product design? (automotive and so on…)
If there is still nothing to be found on Youtube than I guess there is still no channel. I remember this channel
But this freelancer covered this topic quite superficial. Makes sense, since most specialiced industrial designers are working in very restricted areas and are not self-employed. Sharing knowledge is not wanted and honestly most people probally don’t have the ambition to risk their jobs or work extra. All I can say is that Grasshopper is very limiting for that use-case. Its just the tool of choice, because it is still the most flexible tool.But without a custom toolset you constantly face issues reproducing the traditional modelling techniques. When I worked in that area, I basically wrote my own surface tools, deep diving into the topic of Bezier and Nurbs. Maybe using Catia ISD is better alternative in 2023. But I lost a bit the overview, since I changed my profession
If there is still nothing to be found on Youtube than I guess there is still no channel. I remember this channel
But this freelancer covered this topic quite superficial. Makes sense, since most specialiced industrial designers are working in very restricted areas and are not self-employed. Sharing knowledge is not wanted and honestly most people probally don’t have the ambition to risk their jobs or work extra. All I can say is that Grasshopper is very limiting for that use-case. Its just the tool of choice, because it is still the most flexible tool.But without a custom toolset you constantly face issues reproducing the traditional modelling techniques. When I worked in that area, I basically wrote my own surface tools, deep diving into the topic of Bezier and Nurbs. Maybe using Catia ISD is a better alternative in 2023. But I lost a bit the overview, since I changed my profession
Imo grasshopper isn’t really suited to building surfaces for products directly. I mean - you can, but I don’t see the point when CAD does it a lot more intuitively. If you’re designing a new kettle, you’d be doing the design in traditional CAD anyway (especially for all the internal mechanics and fitment) and maybe using Grasshopper for smaller surface details on the outside. Don’t see why you’d want to build form in Grasshopper like this.
Obviously there’s exceptions. If I was trying to get a cool lampshade going - yeah I might jump right into GH, but if I was busy with a kettle? Right into traditional CAD and do some grip detail later in Grasshopper.
I would even say you can’t. You only have a small subset of the required tooling. There are just few usecases, such as creating complex patterns or dynamic templates. Basically whereever you encounter repetition.
Thanks for your replies,
There’s a lot of 3D modelling that is redundant and I’m not referring to the specific stuff (arrays, mesh, etc), but to the workflow. As a freelancer consultant I have to make A LOT of editing and adjustment; and so even if usually something is not it can become redundant.
Take the design of a racecar bonnet, with some naca ducts on it. We have a skin made of a bunch of surfaces (or a single one if we are lucky) and the ducts that cut this skin and are shaped from the cutting (and all the surfaces and fillets which come with it).
What if we need to modify the skin, or only adjust a fillet? Probably we have to re-design the ducts: redo some trims, rebuild one or more surfaces, and the fillets, that’s for sure. Imagine to adjust the skin for 10 times, il takes hours.
What I’m looking to do is to parametrize all these things, as more as I can. So, not only the more mechanical stuff (bolts, reinforcement ribs,…), but also some operations and surfaces (trims, fillets,…).
I used Catia for 6 or 7 years as an employee and from this experience comes my aim.
I don’t think you can achieve something like this with Grasshopper. It does not contain the full modelling capabilities of Rhino. And Rhino does not offer the same modelling features as Catia. You simply can’t do this. Especially matching, filleting and blending surfaces is a pain.
Everything you’ve described is why I use parametric cad modelers: Make a change here, everything updates elsewhere.
That is why I think GH shall contain all the Rhino commands in the future, or maybe implement a specific parametric interface instead. When I switch from Catia to Rhino one of my aims was to have the “less creative” stuff to be the “more automatic as possible”.
Obviously the two softwares are on a completely different range, but that doesn’t mean that Rhino can benefit from specific workflows and program customization.
As a freelancer I don’t want to pay the huge cost of Catia, expecially considering that I’m not a 3D modeler “in primis”, but an all-around designer.
Anyway I already made some complete parametric models for one of my clients, made with Rhino (both Nurbs and SubDs) and Grasshopper. With mechanical simulation as well. And it works, but needs improovements and I’m eager to find new way of doing things without selling an arm and a leg for Catia.
I’ve a great knowledge of Catia (solid, GSD, freestyle) in product design and mould engineering.
And I don’t think it’s so straight forward, expecially with complex stuff. Everytime it needs adjustment, even if you model on a premium and expensive software such as Catia.
What I did with Rhino and GH in the last months is something similar (I’m a newbie here, in the end): it’s not perfect, it needs adjustments, but I’m pretty sure it can be open to nice custom programming. And let’s be honest: it’s a great bang for the buck
I’m just looking for others like me, that are positive on this approach.