Class-A request for complex geometries: Match with fall off

Hello guys!

I would like to propose a way to handle Rhinos CV-heavy geometries, in order to improve surface quality: Match with fall off.

Currently when matching geometries in Rhino, due to the often CV-heavy objects rhino creates, the results will be bumpy, with bad Zebra stripes and low visual appeal, as the match only effects the first 2-3 rows of CVs.

With the new static Zebra command coming to V9, this will be a big problem.

To fix this, matching should be done with a fall off.

Imagine a surface with for example 60 CVs, that you try to match to another surface. The fall off should always apply to half of the CVs. In this example 30 CVs would be moved with fall off, the other half would remain untouched.

This way even geometries with dozens of CVs can be matched to a good quality topology, with nice CV flow and without additional tweaking.

This would just require a check-box (“with fall off”) in the match command. The delta of the matched CVs is distributed among the remaining CV with fall off. Checking “preserve other end” leaves those CVs alone.

5 Likes

Maybe this explains the situation better:



1 Like

Bumping this, any supporters?

I think Cyberstrak will have this function way before Rhino. It’s very close to having it now, I’m hoping for this in the next few version releases. @Peter_Salzman may be able to give us a better idea of when this will come to Cyberstrak?

Hello Rob,

yes I’m sure Peter will create some magic as always!

However, we constantly jump between Rhino, ICEM, Alias and Catia, so I would like to avoid another Licence. The example above was made in Rhino and ICEM.

I was hoping this might become a native Rhino tool.

I talked to @menno about this a couple of day ago.

With the new static Zebra and Global edge continuity coming to V9, my concern is that Rhino will put itself into a very bad position.

Those tools will unforgivingly show all the little flaws in Rhinos surfacing toolset, without providing solutions to fix them. Once you offer those analysis tools to users, there is no way back.

Like telling people: “Hey everybody look what we cannot do properly”
You want cleaner Surfaces? Wait for Rhino 10 in 2030.

I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds here, but from a marketing standpoint for V9 I would at least offer one strong tool to make Zebra and Global Contiunity shine and show their strong points.

That tool can only be an improved “MatchSrf” and “MatchCrv”

Peters tools will be awesome for singlespan geometry, but Rhinos dense and CV heavy geometries need a bit of a different approach.

Sweep 2 Rails is a case that comes to mind here. Or take the example I posted above. There is no way to fix such geometries by hand, especially not with Rhinos CV modelling toolset.

So instead of reworking all surface tools to improve quality, which would take years and many Peter Salzmans, adding the Fall-Off feature and Deviation display to MatchSrf and MatchCrv is the fastest and “cheapest” way to improve Rhinos Surfacing capabilities for V9 as a short term solution.


1 Like

I’m pretty sure Peter’s tools deal with multispan as well as single span.

I understand ref having yet another license. Although, I had a ‘perpetual’ license of ICEM swiped away from me a while ago and the combination of Rhino8 and Cyberstrack now eases that pain and in fact makes the ICEM license look like an overly expensive bit of software (at least for the surfacing that I do).

I just need the feature you are asking for here and then I’d have no reason to think of ICEM again. I’m pretty sure Peter will get there 20 years before it appears in native Rhino. Would love to be proved wrong though!

For us ICEM is a requirement, so we can’t justify buying additional packages and plugins anyway, as ICEM offers that functionality already.

That is why I was hoping for native Rhino, so I dont have jump between different tools.

Is there any change to see such functionality in Rhino in the near future?

Great to hear you’re a fellow ICEM user!

2 Likes