Looking for a little help in working with design options where there are similar objects but their internals are different.
Here is a simplified example. Let’s say I’m setting up 3 variations of the same building. It has many repeated items, some of which are flipped mirrored, etc. I’d like to set these up as 3 or 4 levels of nested blocks, but when I do that I can’t find the blocks several levels deep. As things ramp up in complexity, I would then replace some blocks with other blocks, etc, etc:
That’s fair enough, thanks. I was hoping to balance out my use of Grasshopper a bit, but maybe Rhino just isn’t suited for this kind of stuff without it.
You can also use Worksessions and each of these “modules” will be in different 3dm files that you can attach and detach depending on the needs, but Worksessions doesn’t support scripting to ease switching, so, yeah. Grasshopper would be my best approach.
Is this why there are no complex workflows in Rhino? It seems like both my colleagues and forums tend to say ‘reach for Grasshopper’ once things get complex, repetitive and iterative.
I’m using Rhino to explore concepts, ideas and basic elements. I’m not particularly interested modeling a full building or highly detailed ArchViz, just using it as a schematic design tool.
Revit is already in my workflow for BIM so I can’t really justify the extra cost of VisualArq, especially because the interop between Rhino and Revit is so good.
The reason is partially due to McNeel policies trying to keep Rhino as a support tool for other software their customers are using keeping Rhino learning curve steady. Also the lack of desire of many (most) professional users to learn to code. Leaving the door open for “ruthless” opportunists to develop tools and sell at high price.
