Everyone claims that Alias is superior to Rhino, but both programs fail to make complex surface blends. These blends must be made by hand.
Complex surface blend in Rhino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D16YSWWI4tw
Complex surface blend in Alias (The user speaks Russian language.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw6f6lUgU60
I watched the Phil Cook video. I suppose the nice thing is that if you think about how you would want it to look, there is a way. Though some manual work. āMark
I wonder if there is such a thing as āprofessionalā CAD program, of āprofessionalā software. It seems that all of them are buggy, many have horrible user interface and no technical support. Rhino 5 is now mature enough to do real work and its technical support is flawless. Its plugins are much worse. All McNeel plugins (Brazil, Flamingo, Penguin, Neon, Bongo) are made by independent programmers.
All software is ābuggyā - from operating systems like MacOS and Windows on down. The more complex and polyvalent a system it is, the more it is likely to have bugs. This applies not only to software, but all systems in general. That is reality, what you want is utopia.
Rhino has been mature enough to do ārealā work since it hit the market - its technical capabilities have increased over the years as computers, systems and peopleās expectations have advanced. I have been doing āreal workā with Rhino for like 18 years, it was the core modeling and editing software package of my own business starting in 1998. There are a bunch of other people in here who have been using it to do āreal workā for as long as I have, and a lot of stuff you see every day - products, buildings, boats etc. have had at least part of their design done in Rhino.
Flawless, I donāt knowā¦ everything has flaws. The words incredibly responsive, highly skilled and human-oriented come to my mind firstā¦
āMitch
Oh, come on, Mitch! Let the man speakā¦ I like flawless ;-D!
Well, if weāre talking about you Vanessa, itās definitely trueā¦ 
You made my day! I would definitely give the title to a few other ones in this forum though ;-).
I honestly agree with you on all of your comments. Iād like to add that the fact that some of these blends arenāt automatically achieved is due to the mathematical constraints offered by the type of geometry, we want to achieve shapes that need to be done in many steps so that we can sculpt it in place. Thereās a lot of fine tuning involved that I think is hard to automate. But @Andrew_Nowicki, if you have examples of user interface or functions you would like to have in Rhino, please share. Specific wishes are easier to implement than general comments of what doesnāt work.
Rhino icons are miniature pictures of objects. It seems that colors of the objects are random. I propose a few rules: points are red, lines are green, surfaces are blue, isocurves are yellow, meshes are magenta, imaginary lines are cyan, solid edges and text are black, background is white. Original objects have light colors. Final objects have dark colors.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the input! It seems to me that the toolbar icons are quite consistent though. But I might be so use to Rhino that Iām missing something. As far as I can see, surfaces are blue, edges are black, curves to be created are whitish-grey.
In these instances generally one wants to build the surfaces manually to have full control of the shape rather than letting the software create some arbitrary geometry. There are many instances where you could not get an āautomaticā solution without a lot of manual input.
I make one complex surface from several simple surfaces. The simple surfaces must share untrimmed edges. Next I use MergeSrf (with Smooth option) to join the simple surfaces into one complex surface. Finally, I use MakePeriodic to make the complex surface smoother and easier to edit. If the complex surface needs more editing, I add knots with InsertKnot or InsertKink.