Anyone like Clayoo?


Nothing. AutoDesk has enough money to buy you, me, and pretty much anyone or anything else out there as long as it’s something they want and the owner is willing to sell. Those are just the facts of life for the moment.

Rhino is part of a plug-in ecosystem which makes it somewhat fragile if the system goes out of balance. Right now AutoDesk is consuming as much of the resources of that ecosystem as it can get its hands on. “Pave paradise and put up a parking lot…”


(Gustavo Fontana) #42

the Tsplines solution has always been very slow to update when you are manually moving points. So it’s very frustrating to sculpt a form by dragging points/faces/edges and see the results of that transformation. And historically does crash too often also. I did not see those crashes today (maybe they are gone for all I know), just loaded a model, transformed a few faces, cringed at the molassesness and quit.


What makes a great business is it listens to its customers. Thanks for providing a place to be heard.

(Willem Derks) #44

Thanks for sharing your experiences!


I agree. We have no need for subD tools, but would benefit more from VSR-type tools for “class-A” surfacing. But that’s just us, the next person might have no need for that, but be more in need of something else.

One of Rhino’s strengths over the years has been the versatility of the product. We do very mechanical oriented tasks with it, whereas someone like Heath is producing world-class sculptures. Rhino needs to keep everyone (relatively) happy, so your approach makes sense.



Some more opinion, would be to have sub-d work seemlessly with nurbs,grasshopper , rendering ,anything to do with Rhino . Where one stops perfoming, the other has the strength to take over and finish the task. There is not just model of car , etc. I use VSR a lot and enjoy it. I like it’s bigger control points for tired eyes. Bolder lines to follow shape. In the right hands Rhino is amazing. Fwiw, Mark



I can understand competing companies thinking on this, it makes logical business sense. The competition observes carefully, allowing the developer to demonstrate their tech on Rhino, if it does well simply acquire the tech and talent because McNeel has vetted the quality of the development and the acceptance of the tech in the marketplace for them at no charge.

They also know that McNeel will always be damaged in the short term and long term by using this strategy, first by shutting down updates to the Rhino version of the software and then longer term by freezing users of the plugin software to a particular version of Rhino. The competition also realizes that McNeel will perpetually be behind on what the user base wants because they don’t want to compete with third party development and will not be willing or able to acquire the development talent to roll the plugin into the base Rhino product.

I am likely in the minority of user types, but I use Rhino for access to the plugins. I can’t imagine most of the plugins I use will be updated to be compatible with v6, so I am frozen at v5 unless Mcneel incorporates features into v6 that at bare minimum give me the feature set of what I have with v5 + plugins, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see how McNeel addresses these pressures coming at them from all sides, but I don’t think the successful strategy is to keep doing business as usual.


Why not? Isn’t the onus on the plug-in developers to “step up to the plate” and make their product work in the latest Rhino version? I think it’s a bit early for all this doom and gloom.



If that’s all, what is it that Autodesk is not providing?


Perhaps they will have the reins to keep some people in V5 because of t-splines and VSR

(Adam Hollis) #51

that explains why Fusion 360 is so bad…



I feel confident in saying VSR and TSplines are not going to be making it into v6 (I’d really like to be wrong on this, especially VSR). As I understand it there would need to be a significant amount of work invested to move the plugins from v5 to v6.

The other plugins I use are very good at their functions but I get the indication that they are not a large source of revenue for the developers which can’t help when prioritizing development projects. It’s concerning to see developers drop support for plugins for Rhino despite those plugins filling gaps in Rhinos capabilities knowing that McNeel likely does not have a plan to quickly plug that gap in functionality.


I actually like the fact that McNeel takes its time before releasing new versions of Rhino. In my experience, this results in a stable product.

When I first began working with CAD in the early days of Windows based modellers (Solid Edge and Solid Works), I rarely managed to get through a day without the dreaded “blue screen of death”. In almost ten years of using Rhino, I haven’t seen it once (or its modern equivalent). To be fair, the solid modellers became more stable over time but still weren’t as reliable as I’ve found Rhino to be. A Rhino crash is rare, it does still happen from time to time, but it’s always a surprise.

I like that McNeel doesn’t force me to pay an annual maintenance, I only have to pay to upgrade every few years. I also used to use Alias, paying the maintenance was painful, especially when the updates were sporadic and almost always underwhelming. This was a large factor in my decision to switch to Rhino. I’ll take reliable, proven core functionality at a fair price over the latest wiz bang every day.

Having said that, the acquisition of useful plug ins by Autodesk is a concern. I have T-Splines and haven’t really invested much time in it since they were swallowed up – I didn’t want to become reliant on a plug in that may disappear at any time. I have considered VSR, but again the doubts about its long term future have stopped me from getting it.

I don’t know what the answer is but it sounds as if McNeel is moving towards incorporating some of this extra functionality into a future release. Perhaps these could be McNeel plug ins, rather than core functionality, or there could be an advanced version of Rhino (I’d willing pay more for more functionality).

Returning to the subject of Clayoo – the new version looks quite impressive, the sculpting tools in particular. I’m not sure I would use them but I may try a demo when I have some time to play.


While I follow the main sentiment here (Autodesk trashed my main 3D-Software Softimage XSI some years ago and I generally hate their guts for how clumsy they destroy man-centuries of loving, dedicated work on a whim regularly), I think I personally would prefer a multi-step-path:

1.) There are many good and fast SubD Modellers out there already, so I personally would start with an as good as possible converter for existing polycages. It should allow for at least sharp creases, if possible it also should support arbitrary edge weighting (although that can be simulated in many cases by having two edges close together, but it does not work reliable in all cases and makes the model harder to change).
This script for Moment of Inspiration I linked to before does that already, although with only partial support for creases/weighting, but that should be possible to implement in a not too large timeframe:

2.) Above script only does a direct conversion of each “polygon” to a smoothed NURBS patch with no optimization. That would be a separate step IMO, trying (like T-Splines) to reduce the amount of patches as much as possible.

3.) Integrate a full Mesh/SDS modelling toolset in Rhino. Again, there are things that could help:

  • OpenSubD is free and open source code for fast SDS from Pixar:
    Integrating that in Rhino and Grasshopper would be awesome, since it would finally make SDS usable speedwise - all current solutions in GH I know about are very slow compared to any dedicated SDS modeller - those can usually handle thousands of cage polygons and high SDS-levels in realtime (I usually work at level 4) without breaking a sweat.

And I fully agree about the clumsiness of Fusion 360, I recently worked on an organic design object that I created in Softimage XSI (I still use it as a modeller since it’s so extremely good at that). It is really low poly and I used Fusion only to convert to NURBS, but even just selecting the needed edges for creasing drove me up the wall… :wink:



(Gustavo Fontana) #55

Currently no file format out there supports edge weighting at all, let alone partial creasing. How about adding this to the Free OpenNURBS toolkit? So we can bring things to/from Rhino <> different SubD modelers with this information in place? (cc. @dale)




VSR from AutoDesk is $1400, Clayoo2 is $1000, T-Splines is $700, FormZ Jr is $400 plus the original $900 for Rhino and you still dont have parametrics or constraints or the ability to make changes without starting from scratch. Tried Fusion360… UG! Never did like their interface and wow did they ever mess up T-Splines! Pass.

Giving solidThinking Evolve some serious consideration.


[quote=“gustojunk, post:55, topic:31731, full:true”]
Currently no file format out there supports edge weighting at all, let alone partial creasing. How about adding this to the Free OpenNURBS toolkit? So we can bring things to/from Rhino <> different SubD modelers with this information in place? (cc. @dale)[/quote]

But you would still need specific exporters for all those SubD Modellers…?
For what I do personally, I’d be fine with re-selecting those edges, but of course, it would be much nicer to finally have a format that can transfer this information. I just fear that while catmull and creases are quite consistent between packages, edge weighting is not (for instance between Lightwave and XSI).
For the first step, I could live with re-selecting the creases by hand.




@markintheozarks A bit late to this thread as I do not read the plugin Forum usually.

I used Clayoo 1 almost every time I opened Rhino from its release date until just before Christmas when I moved to T-Splines. On the old Clayoo forum I was one of the most frequent posters. Sometimes I felt like I was the only user. Here is a link to a Wayback view of the old forum.

TDM no longer responded to my posts on their new forum so I moved to T-Splines. T-Splines has a user community, Clayoo does not. No real discussion on their forums, old or new.

In the end nothing changed for so long and without basic features like multiple window selection, numerical transform missing and a major memory issue with Clayoo1 I gave up.

I have been unable to try Clayoo2 as it will not install on my computer anymore. Not TDM`s fault but more of my setup.

However I have no real interest in Clayoo2 now as I have lost faith in TDM. TDM still have major bugs in Rhinogold 4 that from what I have read are still present in RG6 despite promises by Rafael to fix them in RG5&6 and then still offer service releases to RG4 users…early RG users who supported them and their somewhat flawed software to a stage where TDM could sell to Stuller.

I predicted after Stuller purchased TDM the upgrade cycle would get very fast to provide a ROI to Stuller…went from RG5 to RG6 really quickly.

Maybe it is just how bad Clayoo1 was but T-Splines is heaven for my Jewellery modelling. Still crashes now and then but no where near as much as Clayoo1 did. Big difference between a T-Splines crash and Clayoo1 crash is that with the t-Splines crash you lose unsaved work. With a Clayoo1 crash you often lost all the subD data and ended up with a useless mesh.

The tool set in T-Splines is far superior to Clayoo1 and the integration with Rhino much better,

Clayoo2 from what I have read now includes Sculpting and RhinoEmboss. If either of those interest you then maybe Clayoo is the way to go. For me I work faster in T-Splines and until I find something better I will stay with T-Splines and Rhino5…so that rules Rhino 6 out for me when it comes out.


T-Splines for Rhino end of life
Rhino 6 - T splines - Z Brush Problem

Hi to everyone, who contibuted to this thread. I’ve worked with Rhino for only 4 years now. Also have invested in VSR (which I really like). Still I don’t know many of the commands in Rhino. I kind of view Rhino is the people’s software. So many contribute to make it what it is. Everyone wants more functionality; the meshing , the rendeting, sub-d, architecture , jewelery and the list goes on .
Maybe a questionaire on who would commit to buy Rhino for X reason . Like a pre- market analysis , would help the developers know where their energy should go to work.
If Other people think like me , it makes me sick to think of the time ,money, and energy I’ve put into a sound system and software to run in it. Thinking of having to stay in V5 isnt the worst thing, it does show how companys leverage over each other to get ahead.
Maybe Rhino needs to rethink the third party developers idea. VSR and T-splines are 2 great examples of good gone bad to the person who has invested money to make a living.
Thank you everyone for posting, regards,Mark

(Gustavo Fontana) #60

Yes, but it takes two to tango: and importer + and exporter. We are all here in this forum because we use/care about what Rhino does. Many of the other packages already do or could write .3dm file formats. Adding this info to the 3dm file would be a really great win for all of us.

That difference of smoothing is still a problem, if it matters to you and the type of models you have. In most of my practical cases of SubD creasing I can tell you that switching the smoothing type makes no practical differences to the design intent I’m going after ( I use SubD as early 3D sketching). There are a lot of situations where real-world application vs. academic implications are very different. Also I think it’s always a much better start to KNOW with certainty which edges in a model were weighted, instead of trying to manually re-weight by looking at another file in the exporting app. This gets really tricky when you model looks more like a car or a bike helmet than a spoon or a banana :wink: