Very useful for designing
Many parametric CAD, like Catia, Siemens NX, etc. they have the ability to associate a curve/profile to the model, so as to obtain a change in the shape.
It would be a great feature for Rhino …
In my opinion, apart from a few aspects, Rhino is offering little innovation. Other software are making great strides, now do it all! Maybe we will see something new with the introduction of the Sub-D, but this will be discussed in a few years … Too slow its development …
The subD now are everywhere, only Rhino and Moi do not yet have these modeling tools, even SketchUp has something similar!
Have you looked at History in Rhino?
Btw I’m referring to the live updating, and having ‘history’ in everything. Personally I find Modo too messy and complicated. It needs to be streamlined.
If the same concepts were taken to an app like Rhino, with t-splines, history editing on everything (need a way access those control shapes simply and unobtrusively), and live updating, it would be very useful. For the time being I think modo and fusion360 are better solutions.
And yes @davide76, Rhino’s development is very slow. Even if this sort of stuff made it to Rhino V7, it wouldn’t be for another 5 years at least. Best to test out other solutions.
If Rhino was able to perform fillet, shell and boolean type Parasolid, add SubD tools, would be the modeler number one!
The subD the are developing, the main problem is the management of the fittings: underperforming and too weak in most situations. You should find something more powerful: I think this would be a real revolution for Rhino!
Again, remember that “many parametric cad” are all using the same geometric kernel and thus have access to the same type of operations. There are only a few common kernels. (@bob, this page is actually incorrect concerning Rhino) ACIS and Parasolid account for most of the most popular MCAD software packages…
With something like ACIS or Parasolid, you have dozens of high-priced software leasing the same kernel which makes for a lot of money coming in to the kernel developers to pay for further development. And they only have to develop the geometry part, not the interface or anything else.
There’s no way Rhino can compete with that, money from sales has to go to the development of the entire program, not just its own “home-grown” geometric kernel; and there are no economies of scale to be had by developing that kernel for others and deriving additional income from licensing.
That’s just how life is in the fast lane, Rhino still offers many, many things the other packages don’t, and does a lot of things better than other software, but solid modeling with fillets and shelling just isn’t one of them.
Mitch, what you say is correct, but it is a real shame that Rhino can not have the really powerful fillet tools: these alone would be enough to make big Rhino! It would be enough even a plug-in to generate fillet developed ad-hoc.
Mine is perhaps a utopia, at least we dream!
You might have some more information on the kernel used by Rhino (own kernel)? There are differences between the geometry engine used by V5 and V6?
It would be interesting to know the characteristics and potential, as described for other famous geometric engines, type ACIS and Parasolid.
I read on Wikipedia that this engine is also used by “NanoCad” and “Archicad”, which I use.
No, “own kernel” means that it is developed by McNeel (“their own product”), not that the name of the kernel is “Own”…
“In the table below you can see a representative list of developers that
belong to companies developing their own kernel or licensing the kernel
Ok thanks Mitch. You might know more about the geometry engine used by Rhino? Is it developed in C ++?
It would be interesting to know its characteristics, as for Parasolid, for example.
McNeel says it all on software development, but says nothing about the characteristics of the geometry engine … mine is just a curiosity.
Mitch, kindly, you may give your own opinion on the post “FilletEdge without ChainEdges”?
Sorry, I don’t have any in this particular case… --Mitch
I have a script for AutoCAD that does the same thing that I’ve been carrying around for years. I often find myself reflexively entering these 2-key commands in Rhino. Some even 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.
I posted this in another thread, but it is more appropriate here.
Wish list item - ngon support when meshing (export to obj).
Ability to import a 3d studio max file. ( .max) for those that dont own or have access to 3d studio max.
STEP import improvements.
I’m not sure where the problem lies but I sometimes when I import STEP files they get all messy. It’s from both CATIA and Unigraphics that I know of. There seem to be some problem with the tolerances, often the files have the wrong tolerance set in them which result in untrimmed radiuses that end up as huge surfaces (looks like rings). If we take the unigraphic files through Catia first they look a little bit better.
I know this may be caused by the other softwares but if you could solve this it would make a lot of people happy.
Make the file import/conversions multi core.
I’ve noticed this on occasion from solid works step export.
My Wish list for rhino v6:
- When making any alterations in 3D to automatically update all technical packages.
- Timeline access points - Review history to access earlier stage of development to develop files in a different direction alternative to the first attempt.
- Interconnecting Parallel assemblies with different parts possibly through a flow chart methodology.
Automatically fix un-joined surfaces/wrongly trimmed/booleaned poly-surfaces into a complete “airtight” solid. Rhino to provide an “options select bar” to choose from that result to forced solutions ensuring airtight solids, or at least better highlight any issues alternative to using “ShowEdges”.
Compatibility - Perfectly export/import rhino files into Solidworks.