Of course solid editing could and should work better in Rhino, but repeatedly pointing to NXs syncronous modeling features without taking into account its price tag (and the topological price to pay: added control points, tolerances on edges etc) is just silly.
That’s all I wanted to say.
So yes, by all means: McNeel, if you offer solid editing as a feature, at least the simple geometries should indeed work better than they do.
Users that are looking for direct modelling that preserves design intend: don’t hold your breath.
I downloaded plasticity. It’s direct modeling is pretty great. It’s only in version 1, so its features are pretty limited. You can’t even measure except in the most rudimentary way. But lots of potential, although the fact that it declares that it is “CAD for artists” doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. As long as your creating a CAD app why limit your aspirations? Especially when the direct modelling super app charges $3400/yr.
I also downloaded Rhino 8 and got to know push/pull and the gumball a little better. Pretty cool and they go a long way to satisfying my feature request. However, still lots of limitations. The “extend” option in the gumball only seems to work with planar surfaces. Keep up the good work Rhino guys! Still a ways to go.
Because it initially didn’t use parasolid as its kernel. The lone developer wasn’t sure he could be able to afford a parasolid license, but he managed to get one and this is just speculation, but I suspect that the only reason he was able to is because his application serves a different market where Siemens is interested in seeing if there’s any potential growth, so they let him have a license purely as a test.
We are all dependent on others, and one bad relationship experience should not prevent you from forming a new one. True love might be just around the corner
Dependence on people is fine, but that’s not what I’m taking about. Building Rhino around a different modeling kernel would mean a huge part of it would need to be rewritten. If that happens planned, it might work, but it would also put the future of Rhino at risk.
My point is that we users are building businesses and plugins that are dependent on Rhino and it’s predictability in the future… so we do it all the time
I don’t know software at all, so please forgive a stupid question. Is parasolid a requirement for my feature request? Push/pull in Rhino seems to go a lot of the way. Creo is not parasolid (I think) and PTC’s lame attempt at replicating this functionality does what I want. It seems like a relatively minor tweak to what McNeel is already working on.
No, but Parasolid is a widely used geometry kernel that has been developed for many decades, and is capable of solving a lot of geometric issues. Since Rhino uses a proprietary modeling kernel, its functionality will never be the same as a modeling application that is built on top of the Parasolid modeling kernel. All the ‘magic’ that you see happening in Plasticity or any other application needs to be programmed. Thousands of special cases are all programmed. This means many million lines of code.
The openNURBS Initiative provides CAD, CAM, CAE, and computer graphics software developers the tools to accurately transfer 3D geometry between applications.
The tools provided by openNURBS include:
C++ source code libraries to read and write the 3DM file format. The current compilers from Microsoft and Apple are supported. A makefile is provided as a starting point for using other compilers.
Note : openNURBS is an open source toolkit for only reading and writing 3DM files.[emphasis added] Our full-featured development platform is provided in the Rhino SDKs.
openNURBS is not a full geometry kernel, contrary to wishful thinking which can be found on the internet.
