Getting solids to a certain dimension

[Dirk_Meylaerts]

Hello, small question. i design furniture on Rhino 8 and i always start out designing instinctively to get a visual result. I then want to validate this design by exact measurements on my objects but the only way i can find is : drawing a line along the edge of the solid, selecting a surface on the solid and then move face to the end of the line.Is the new push and pull a new possibility to do this? Am i being clear about my problem?
Super shitty to do. Is there another way? Such a basic problem but i can’t find the solution. Why can’t i select the solid (or everything else for that matter ) and tap in new measurements in a dialogue window somewhere?

[Helvetosaur]

@Dirk_Meylaerts

Why can’t i select the solid (or everything else for that matter ) and tap in new measurements in a dialogue window somewhere?

Because Rhino isn’t parametric based software…

[Dirk_Meylaerts]

ok. so vectorworks is?

[JimCarruthers]

@Dirk_Meylaerts

Super shitty to do. Is there another way? Such a basic problem but i can’t find the solution. Why can’t i select the solid (or everything else for that matter ) and tap in new measurements in a dialogue window somewhere?

Because Rhino’s not parametric, it exists due to the fact there are situations where the added overhead of making sure your history tree isn’t going to break when you “just select something and tap in new measurements” isn’t really worth it, and workflows that are basically impossible under such systems.

[cdordoni]

No, VectorWorks is not a parametric modeler like SolidWorks, Inventor, Creo etc.
Apparently it has some limited parametric constraints relating to 2D but its a far cry from being a parametric modeler in the general sense.

[ore]

Hello @Dirk_Meylaerts . If I got your problem right then this is what BoxEdit is for (not to be confused with CageEdit). I use it every day. It is in the side panels, but maybe it’s not visible and needs to be switched on in your installation.

[Tom_P]

some possible tools / workflows:

sub-select a Face
or
_solidPtOn

_setPt
use
_cplane before setPt

some modifications are also fast with
_scale1d
or with
_orient or _orient3d (scale1d option might do a nice job as it will allow a target point and a relative scale-point in one go)

[lander (CAD CAM CNC)]

@Helvetosaur

Because Rhino isn’t parametric based software…

But GH is merged-in, soo… why fight it

@JimCarruthers

Because Rhino’s not parametric, it exists due to the fact there are situations where the added overhead of making sure your history tree isn’t going to break when you “just select something and tap in new measurements” isn’t really worth it, and workflows that are basically impossible under such systems.

A ‘history tree’ is not a requisite of ‘parametrics’. In fact a history tree is indeed the achilles heel of parametrics, which is why it’s imperative that Rhino continue in the GH (or similar) direction, and also add more ‘object properties’ editable versions etc.

[Zaxxon (Zaxxon77)]

I had a related question at one point - Is there a better way to scale to absolute units?

As a relative newcomer to Rhinoceros, this topic, (and the responses it tends to elicit) has always been a bit of a head-scratcher for me as well. The fact that we can see the object properties in Info and not adjust them has always felt odd, it’s not that dissimilar from Adobe Illustrator’s Properties dialog, where basic bounding-box X/Y parameters and other data types can be directly edited, (both for individual elements/paths and groups). Granted - these are sort of crude “orientation” transformations, that only pertain to a rectilinear bounding box in Cartesian world coordinates - but for many design and houskeeping operations this is a fairly natural approach.

So thanks @ore - BoxEdit is really good to know about, it looks like it sort of does the above.

Is there a backstory on why there isn’t more direct editing in Rhino? As @lander points out - the sprawling complexity (bureaucracy?) of a history tree isn’t really one-and-the-same with parametric/direct editing. I think it’s also clearly a fundamental virtue of Rhino that we have granular/atomic access to much of the elemental nature of NURBS - and that should never be sullied by or confused with more macro level operators, (would these approaches inevitably be in conflict?).

I see there are a couple of tickets for these kinds of tools, so maybe they will arrive at some point -
RH-145

RH-73643

[lander (CAD CAM CNC)]

@Zaxxon

The fact that we can see the object properties in Info and not adjust them has always felt odd, it’s not that dissimilar from Adobe Illustrator’s Properties dialog, where basic bounding-box X/Y parameters and other data types can be directly edited, (both for individual elements/paths and groups). Granted - these are sort of crude “orientation” transformations, that only pertain to a rectilinear bounding box in Cartesian world coordinates - but for many design and houskeeping operations this is a fairly natural approach.

I agree. While it wasn’t obvious to me until I compared it to Mastercam, then I knew it’s doable.

Continuing the discussion from Rhino WIP Feature: Constraints:

@lander

Here’s a comparison between so called object properties in Rhino and so called entity analysis in Mastercam:

Notice how the parameters are editable. But also notice how ‘constraints’ aren’t really driven either – I’d say it should be an option, but Mastercam has other problems too which I wont mention here yet.

The focus here is the control that the ‘user’ is provided by the software.

Rhino has so much potential. Users need to be liberated with constraints and control over degrees of freedom in 3D all the time.

Maybe all that’s missing is an object properties Eto Framework?

[Dirk_Meylaerts]

Thank you so much , this is really helpful!