Are OpenGL version conflicts a problem

What Jim is saying and what I was saying before is:

a) Rhino is designed to run on low spec hardware. “Pro” hardware may improve performance but most likely will not. Because
b) Rhino is not a poly-modeler and uses an entirely different display pipeline. Comparing it to 3ds Max, C4D, related benchmarks or any other polygon mesh based benchmark is useless.

As a side note: your quote refers to a user of Zbrush and Max. Both poly modelers. Both specifically designed to handle lots and lots of polygons and nothing else. Especially Zbrush generates a s*load of polygons while sculpting away. This user will no doubt see a better performance.

mmmmm, McNeel is price gouging people with this product by lot! I would say its only worth about $150.00, not $900.00!

Ironically if you sold it at the the correct price, your sales might be able to skyrocket into more mainstream markets. Though unfortunately there is freeware available that does most everything and more that Rhino does, though it is geared toward games and marketing, Rhino in appearance anyway, is geared towards building and designing boats, and anything that is computationally similar to boats. Hobbyware is what it is.

Your total inability to clearly nail your product down to hardware, eliminates you from any professional interest, except I guess the narrow category of boat builders who seem to have been satisfied with this line of products for the last twenty years. No professional in his right mind would use this product, its nebulous hardware specifications are simply flabbergastingly absurd, there is no excuse for this, unless your market is simply not professionals.

the information you guys have given me certainly implies this, you are training students, but you are not keeping professionals, so you have a financial crunch, you can’t afford to support the product properly for the professional.

my interest in this product goes beyond common sense however. So I will keep using it for the time being. Though i should get at least a $700.00 credit and a free copy of bongo 2 for all the unGodly hassle you’ve guys have put me through. Seriously this is ridiculous. Their is no excuse for this runaround you are giving your customers who may have blown $1000’s of dollars to pump up some software that can’t be pumped up. Inexcusable. Highly misleading. Again and again I have given you guys specific information for professional interest, and if I had been hasty I would be even more unhappy and pissed off now than I am, having sold people on the a notion that can’t currently be fulfilled. performance information should be readily available for customers. simply ridiculous

Heh, have we found an alt of JB here? I’m just waiting for the plug for SolidThinking…

I don’t know who’s giving you a runaround here, no actual McNeel staff have replied we’re just offering our opinion that you can save a few bucks. Anyway, I would hope “professionals” would investigate a little more what a video card does before dropping the value of a good used car on one, learn the difference between CAD and 3D graphics applications, and know better than to try to impress a board full of professionals by loudly claiming to be the mostest professionallist of all.

Hi Justin -
You can get a refund if you are not satisfied with Rhino.


How long is that statement good for?

I am a customer of the product. I have not bought one thing for this particular software. I’ve been digging around for information for over a month now, to select the correct parts, and its all very ambiguous.

To sum up:
----Powerful CPU with lots of GHz, probably don’t need more than 4 cores
----lots of speedy memory
----good motherboard
----SSD and HD
----and there is no good video card for this application currently as far as anyone knows, and no concise information about the subject anywhere that I can find, just ambiguity and outdated information from several years ago.

Hi Justin,
I agree that Mcneel hasn’t provided comprehensive information about hardware performance information officially, which might lead Rhino users going wrong directions. I am one of the “victims” (I don’t really mean that) who bought expensive PC hardware that cannot take advantage of in Rhinoceros. But the conclusion of only professionals use Pro specs is a wrong statement. I’m an architecture STUDENT(but I do model industrial models for fun). I use Pro cards to improve the productivity. To me, serious people are Pros. I read a thread about similar article a while ago, and one Mcneel member stated that Rhinoceros is for all users who don’t have, or can’t afford decent computers. To be honest, I’m not rich, but I buy all licences, including Rhinoceros, Autodesks(almost expired), Adobe, Microsoft, Maxwell, Snagit and most likely will purchase and upgrade Rhinonest, Rhinoresrf and so on in the future. I can tell all my savings will be gone when I upgrade and purchase new licences. I wish,as many others do, Rhinoceros can take advantage of computer hardware.

Rhino is bad at mesh/polygon modeling but It’s good for Nurbs. Pro users don’t care what software they use.

Just let you know what Rhinoceros is capable of.

Class-A modeling in Rhinoceros. Download the file and Zebra the model.


Yes McNeel has really screwed this up, the marketing is so geared towards the ignorant newbs who don’t know much, which is me. People who can’t afford good computer will use free 3d software, or there price range is around $150-300 for it. there is great free 3d software available to people with little money. the only reason they would go with this stuff is because they did not know any better, newbs just gotta take a plunge somewhere. Or they are highly specialized, and it just does what they want it to do the best.

However, for reasons that make no common sense, i think the Rhino software package has a future and will prosper.

Whatever that file is, I can’t open it.

That link goes to page 12 so you’ll have to turn to the next page:

For CAD applications employing OpenGL, the Radeon R9 290’s performance is enough for a place in the middle of the pack, but that’s about it. The realized benchmark results are far from what’s theoretically possible based on the hardware’s specifications, but OpenGL performance remains largely dependent on driver optimization, which just isn’t a very high priority on gaming graphics cards. The situation changes a bit from one application to another, but OpenGL is certainly not the Radeon R9 290’s strong suit.

I can’t really see how you can be misreading that information? It’s right in your face: a gaming card, not for professional OpenGL use.

If you had been following the GPU thing, you’d seen that it is basically all down to the drivers. And they tend to be a mess. Instead of requiring expensive hardware and associated high fees for driver qualification at the card vendors, Rhino has attempted to use the “The Industry’s Foundation for High Performance Graphics” [quoted from] as it is written (granted, an older version of it) so that it can be used on any hardware.

I don’t think anyone around here will try to stop you from spending a few thousands (every year) [unspecified currency;-)] on software that requires high-end cards. For the past 17 years I have been using Rhino side-by-side with SolidWorks, Pro/E, and now NX and I know which one I prefer…

By the way, an interesting (to me) comment on this review was on page 12 about DirectX:

DirectX’s disadvantage is its use of single-precision coordinates, which can easily lead to display errors in complex models […]

I think Mcneel team has reasons. Be positive.
From my point of view, Rhino cannot handle complex forms a lot of times. What I noticed is that students around me don’t have enough knowledge in Rhinoceros. For instance, when deal with large files, they don’t know how to simplify and manage layers to reduce the file size or even BOX mode. Or, what even worth is that they don’t know how to draw a curve efficiently. Adding unnecessary control points, it certainly is a bad habit of modeling I would say. My friends complain about this a lot of times, but I have no suggestions, because either way (improve modeling skills in short time, or hardware which Rhino cannot take advantage of) seems not imminent. What students end up with is crashing files.
I model things effectively, but I’m not satisfied with the performance Rhino gives. I do think Rhino developers seriously think about the hardware use. In order to have a good projects, most students do want to put money on hardware. So, it doesn’t make sense students are the low profile users. Students care about projects, so they will put money on hardware. Maybe industrial filed is slightly different, but for architecture students, Rhino performance needs to catch up.

I think the Mcneel team knows better than any of us in terms of marketing.


Yes, well thats great information. paraphrasing what I have read regarding Rhino, FlamingoNXT and Bongo: the more GHz on the CPU the better, the more RAM, and the speedier it is the better, and from what you saying about graphics cards, the more Video Memory, the better.

this NURBS system that Rhino uses seems to be focused heavily on using generic parts, So the GTX 780 6GB would actually be the best performer, even though Rhino doesn’t specifically use much of the GPU, the High amount of Video Memory would be beneficial. Am I correct?

It’s also almost $200 cheaper.

The way rhino doesn’t like specialized parts, could be its strength, though currently it seems like a weakness.

Yeah, I always have to laugh with these type of threads, they’re definitely worth reading for the entertainment value…


O the card that they were reviewing in the article has nothing to do with my interest in it. It is the great big slew of video cards that they test on CAD software. The Firepro W7000 does very well in the OpenGL based application tests you can see.

But I understand now that Rhino doesn’t make a lot of use of OpenGL either. It likes generic parts and specialized driver configurations don’t seem to make much difference.

currently that seems like a weakness, but it may be its strength, as you say.

What would you need lots of video RAM for?

Again in very simple words:

Rhino/NURBS Geometry is not polygon geometry!

OpenGL as well as DirectX are both polygon based drawing interfaces. Their conceptual difference is how often 3D geometry needs to be modified and how.

I am not aware of any (pro or gamer) graphics hardware that does natively support NURBS geometry.

So Rhino (and any other NURBS modeler) needs to provide its own conversion and drawing routines for NURBS surfaces and curves. More often than not, this is more efficiently done on the CPU. Part of that conversion is drawing a polygon mesh that approximates the NURBS surface. This is the only part of the drawing process that would really be able to leverage any GPU power.

While Rhino uses the OpenGL interface, it is by no means an OpenGL-App. This “weakness” applies to any software that primarily draws NURBS geometry on generic hardware.

:warning: I think you’re getting dangerously close to losing your rights to post in here…

That is a little uncalled for, simply because you can’t decide what video card to get. Just remember you are getting differing advice from users who are most likely all doing different things.

You might want to check out the Holomark thread in which users have benchmarked their cards in Rhino: Holomark 2 Released!

The bottom line is Rhino can make most cards work. How much you want to pay to eke out every last drop is up to you.

I just built a new system around the need to use Rhino. This said here is a reply from the vendor as we were discussing my build.

Another problem I could potentially see is that the video card, the FirePro 2460, is not a very powerful video card and since you would primarily be using this system for 3D design,
you might want a more powerful video card. The Asus GeForce GT 640 Passive would be an option that, while it only has support for three monitors instead of 4 that the FirePro has, has more video memory (2 GB) than the FirePro does.

A company called Puget systems built this new system and they worked with me prior to the build. I had an old graphics machine and was sorely in need of a new machine. I built his system around a an I7 processor and with a solid state boot drive I am thrilled with the performance of this new system. Go online and shop a machine at Puget, it cost no money until you say yes and the staff there goes out of their way to make sure you get exactly what your after.

All my best … Danny

My renders from the Rhino Render- on a laptop that has 3.5" floppy drive installed on it mind you- have sold literally millions of dollars worth of projects, with 10-20 min sprucing up on the primary in PS, and nothing at all done to the supporting images. We are all busy people after all, selling stuff, right? Who the hell wants to blow extra time on proposals?

In your case especially, I can promise you Rhino or it’s rendering performance is not the bottleneck.

Last I was working on two complex Rhino files at the same time and Photoshop was open too - more than 4GB GPU memory usage.

First of all… more than 4Gigs of VRAM available is… nice. :smile:

My question was really aimed at the intended usage. There may be situations where more RAM is of help. From my own experience it’s nice but not neccesary. Depending on the machine I’m using, I have 1 or 2 gigs at my disposal and while I have seen some heavy graphics slowdown, memory consumption was never the problem.

Then again, I’m not sure about the very latest release, but Photoshop shouldn’t use very much of GPU memory.