For Rhino V6 wishlist

Hmm- possibly, BlendCrv, with the Edges option may come close?

-Pascal

1 Like

Oh my @Pascal, i feel emberassed, thats pretty much what i meant yes, man, i have been using rhino so long you get stuck in a workflow and dont know that there are new functions, eventhough i used blendcrv alot i didnt even notice the command bar,

Eitherway, the only thing thats missing is project tangent you can move along the edge and the history updates,
Oh and if you would say g0 instead of g1,2 etc, you would be able to rotate it to any direction, well actually, you would even be able to do that with g1 or 2 active (ofcourse it wouldnt be g1) but you get alot of control over it.

Thanks alot for pointing that out, i will surely use that,…

Hi Sabino- while in the command you can slide the end point along the surface edge and also rotate the angle at which it hits the edge by holding Alt and dragging a control point- does that help at all? None of this works once the command ends- which may be your point.

-Pascal

Yeah, i saw that, ive been using the function eversince you told me about it, though i wonder why this option is only available with the commandbar active, why not make it optional in the blendcrv options box? so you can more easily play around.

Yes that was my point idd, i can only speak for myself but i think that alot of designers want to play around with shapes as they go along and ofcourse, easily edit afterwards,…i know im asking alot :D…

Yep, this would require that BlendCrv have History, and that History allowed the input parameters to me modified- neither is impossible, technically, I believe… but also not on the top of the list of things to do.

-Pascal

Hi,
It’s my first post on the forums…

I’m new to Rhino but I’ve been using 3D professionally for a good while (3DS Max, Maya, ZBrush, Softimage, etc.). I was genuinely surprised to find a lack of scene management feature(s) like Maya’s Outliner missing; it’s such a basic feature for modeling software. I thought I must be doing something wrong because I couldn’t find it until I read a post on the forums confirming it doesn’t exist. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about this!)

Please consider adding this feature for Rhino 6 or as an update (IMO this really should be part of the application and not a third party plugin). Being able to select, filter, rename, organize (by name, type, etc), group, hide/ unhide/ render type, set properties, basic organization, etc. is a must have for productivity and workflow optimization.

My favorite flavor of scene management tools in other software is Maya’s Outliner but there are some other good implementations as well:
The Explorer (XSI)
Scene Explorer (3DS Max)
Select by Name (3DS Max)
Schematic View (3DS Max)
Hypergraph (Maya)
Model Tree (Inventor)
etc

Having said all that I’m really enjoying using Rhino and I’ve been having a lot of fun with it. It’s been a long time but using NURBS again full time is like slipping into a warm bath.
Warmest regards

4 Likes

Dunno, been using Rhino for like 15 years now and never needed one… So it’s not essential for everyone. Not saying it shouldn’t be added, but simply that it’s not required for everyone.

–Mitch

One can work without scene management tools, but I find it makes the workflow significantly faster and more organized. I’d put it on par with having a layer editor. Anything that can speed up productivity is a welcome addition.

Edit: Just to beat a dead horse, here are some videos of The Explorer window in XSI and the Outliner window in Maya:
(XSI) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQbg31yV338
(Maya) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPMJUQqeXks

(Alias - Object Lister) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyJXBxLF2PQ (0:18 to 1:00)

I think the interface would translate very well to Rhino. It’s a parallel and similar idea to the Layer Editor but with more granularity and functionality. Any additional functionality that works on the object and sub-object level (as opposed to strictly groups/ sets/ classes) of would be a welcome addition.

An obvious example would be each layer in the layer editor having a collapsible list of the objects it contains. Each object in the layer could have the same individual controls as the layer (but subordinate to the layer itself).

1 Like

I would love to see an option for assigning history to a set of objects. I hate breaking history to edit separately and then not having the option to manipulate everything at once after. I work with movable parts so it is very important for me to be able to see if everything will move as desired when I can not use history.

1 Like

Hi,

Thanks for posting this I would welcome something like these. I don’t think people are listening because we asked for such things in the past, instead McNeel gave us tabbed properties tab that slows down Rhino immensely, a what command etc, nothing in one place and convincing people who don’t understand how useful this even when the evidence is right in front of their face is rather depressing.
At least people could look at the videos you posted and respond.
RM

It appears that some of building blocks are already there (not sure how easy this is to hook into under the hood): Edit > Select Objects > By Object Name/ etc. Having mapped the functions to hotkeys usage of the commands is still prone to error (i.e. a simple error forgetting to rename the object means it doesn’t show up in the list, so one has to close the window, hunt down the object in the viewport/ layers/ unhide/ and open the properties tab & rename - no time saved).

Almost everything under the Select Objects menu could be combined into one floating interactive window that doesn’t require objects/ groups, etc. to be renamed before showing up in the list. It’s similar to the selection window that pops up when one selects overlapping objects. Over the course of working on a complex model, the time spent hunting and pecking around in the viewports/ moving objects in layers/ hiding & unhiding adds up. It’s an unnecessary time sink.

Having been on the other side of software development, it’s a difficult line to walk. Resources are limited, there are always competing features/ priorities, and depending on how old the underlying architecture is it can be very difficult to implement something that seems apparently simple (sometimes the opposite is true as well). I’m sure someone has taken note but it would be nice to hear something back from someone at McNeel. A feature like this could be very deep, but even a basic implementation would go along way.
-=Ole

It would be fantastic to be able to associate layer states with saved views in a clean interface. This would be useful for exploring and presenting different design options quickly and efficiently.

4 Likes

I know this has been mentioned before, but I would greatly appreciate a separation of the mesh vertex OSnap and extrusion vertex OSnap.

Thanks,
Sam

2 Likes

Add simple text based Attributes to Objects; for example Specific Gravity, Material Name; for Example 6061 T6 AL, Length & Radius Fields, and the ability to export a list to Excel that includes the portions of Object Properties to generate a BOM from a model. Future functionality could easily be expanded to include Solidworks like functionality for BOM’s.
Best, Bill

1 Like

Hey there,
what’s about multi processor kernel for rhino 6?
Think thats one real important item.
See also this thread:

So it seems, that you guys at McNeel are working already hard on it?

Regards,
André

2 Likes

Hi again,
what I also find very odd, is the fact that a curve copied from an untrimmed surface has more points than the surface edge.
I know it 's mathematic problem.
But VSR shows its possible to do it better, not perfect but better.

Also the rebuild curve/surface command:
It relocates the points in equal distances. It should calculate to optimized postion for each point to fit the original geometry with a defined amount of points.
Don’t know if that is possible.

Regards,
André

Hi Andre- what do you mean, exactly? An isocurve? A projected curve? Can you post an example?

thanks,

-Pascal

Hello Pascal,
no, I meant just copying the edge of an untrimmed surface.
Unfortunately I could find a model where this happened.
But it happend more than once.
I remember, that was an degree 2 surface with 2 by 3 points, but the copied curve had degree 3 and lots of points. Should be an arc.

If the curve rebuild command was improved, so that the points are not in regular distances animore, that would help a lot already.
What I don’t like on the VSR curve approximisation is, that there is no chance to get an curve with an defined amount of points.
As we all know, curves with equal amounts of points are the rule for good surfaces.

Best,
André

1 Like

I’m glad that André has commented on this, since it explains some problems I’ve also encountered, but did not understand. These related to watertight failures in polysurfaces when I sometimes needed to rebuild curves or surfaces.

The enclosed image shows a simple comparison of rebuilds for both a (Control Point) curve and an interpolated EP (Edit Point). Both were Degree 3 and the points and degree were kept the same. Both Edit Points and Control Points are shown for all.


I rarely rebuild with such simple shapes, so I was very surprised to see that the resulting CV curve was significantly different in shape after rebuilding, while the EP curve was still fairly similar. After this example, I’m a bit more reluctant to use rebuild than I have in the past since it seems to neither maintain the shape, nor does it uniformly distribute Edit Points. A bit confused here…

I’m not sure if my wish is the same as Andrés (and clearly there is some serious math creating these results), neither rebuild result created uniformly spaced Edit Points. Seems to me that an improved solution would offer some checkbox choices for Rebuild, such as: 1. Maintain shape, 2. Create Uniform Edit Points, 3. Keep Tolerance below X value, to imagine a few. Points and Degree might then be calculated results.

Hoping this makes some sense!
~Dave

2 Likes

Andre,
You might look into FitCrv. In theory it rebuilds a curve with denser knots in areas of higher curvature rather than evenly spaced knots. I don’t believe you can specify a number of knots, but you can play with the tolerance.