I’m a relatively new guy on the geometry team at McNeel and I’m getting into learning more about direct modeling and what can be done to improve how Rhino does it. Solid Tools? Transform??? I need to understand how people use these tools in order to see where improvements would be most useful.
Can anyone help me by creating a screen recording of themselves trying to model this camera in Rhino. You can try to follow the workflow shown in this video as closely as possible, or do something totally different. Please include all the times you struggle or fumble with the tools! No judgement. It will be so helpful to see what works well and what’s challenging.
The topic of modeling a camera brings back memories of a post shared by @jessesn Jessesn Chen on the Rhino China forum about 16 years ago. It was a fascinating project that used Grasshopper to construct the model.
Thanks Sam for asking this question, I’m sure looking deeper into this area would improve Rhino greatly.
The answer in not trivial.
You can achieve that shape by surface modeling, you can shape surfaces by control points like in the video but the main issue is to keep the edges togheter while modifying the shape.
Another big issue is that the Fillet could not be “push-pulled” so you have to rebuild it every time loosing all the interctiveness.
You better to start with a simpler question or example.
Deforming a cuve like in the video could be already challenging for Rhino altought is pretty simple to do it as surface.
See my video to understand the issue of this direct manipulation of solids. Edit a BOX into a Shape
Unlike NX Rhino isn’t able to keep edges togheter while deforming the surface so you have to modify both surfaces control points. Of course if you need different number of point this would not garanteee the edge to stay closed.
It’s a long time that I feel working with solid differntly from surface like a big limit.
Would be great to being able to use editing surface tools direclty on solid faces makeing them acting like surfaces
NX costs 10x what Rhino costs… and for only one year!! That said, achieving a good result without taking too much longer is a good test. We can’t model things the same way as these more expensive programs. We tend to be able to prototype way faster. We can render within the program (NX can likely do that as well… but at 10x the cost… ).
I use Rhino more for Architecture but have been eyeing this up as it would be a really good exercise. Learning to create nice surfaces was more a matter of not ending up with bad/broken geometry opposed to actually needing to to achieve the shapes I’m after.
before i add some redundant weight and repeat, rephrase what has been said already, just generally i think there are most likely different kind of modelling approaches for different kind of purposes which completely dictates the kind of software you would use (if you can select at all). the one style if one can say so as you show here suggests a spontaneous solution that shapes a sketch of an object till it feels right without having to have an established concept before.
opposed to all that in a different world one would pretty well know what has to be modeled before sitting down to CADifiy it, making bending surfaces after one has established the actual rough geometry a rather unnecessary step.
with all that being said yes of course we also like to sketch out stuff in Rhino either while also changing the geometry that has been created without having to entirely rebuild. and for these kind of works having better tools at hand that have the history enabled all the way through till the fillets no matter what changes we do would probably be a very helpful amendment.
i have often typed out loud somewhere here on Disco that Rhino is not really that far away from all that, one would just have to tie together what is already in place to finalize the idea of history and make something useful from it. it does not even have to be parametric as per definition for parametric tree enabled software packages but as you have shown here being able to change how the surfaces hit each other while having dynamic fillets that update when the edges change would definitely add to the table.
to resume, the biggest thing missing in Rhino really is just that joining and creating solids from surfaces breaks the history. with that in tact plus having fillets that re-fillet when the edges are changed, including booleans that keep the mother geometry hidden and in tact would be all we need i guess. it would probably add some weight to the file but ok.
Your opinions are very fun and interesting to read, but what I want are screen recordings of people attempting to model this camera. Like I said, you can try to follow the workflow or do something else; it doesn’t matter. If you want to help Rhino improve, please take 30 minutes out of your day to attempt modeling this camera and post the result here. Even a partial attempt like what @skysurfer posted above is better than nothing.
Great initiative, Sam! Seeing the geometry team reaching out to users like this is exactly why the McNeel community is so strong. Looking forward to seeing how these insights shape the future of Rhino’s direct modeling
Thank you for sharing . This is indeed a very early demonstration about Grasshopper for solid modeling, mainly using Boolean operations for modeling design. Starting from Rhino 8, Boolean commands for solids support recording history, so now this model can basically be completed in Rhino 8 or Rhino WIP, and details can be adjusted as needed. Rhino will automatically update the modified model, as demonstrated below.
Your example is really interesting and shows an advanced use of the Boolean and History.
Would you mind to share the 3D file or show a bit of the process?
It’s not clear to me how you control the boolean starting from the surface cosntruction, did you change the Srf direction by hand?
Yes, this model mainly uses BooleanDifference with DeleteInput = No, which allows the process of subtracting volumes at each step to be recorded, so you can modify the surface used for “subtracting volumes” at each step to dynamically adjust the shape. A simple demostration is as follows, hope it helps you.
So, although this might be very embarrassing for me, I did record a video… although, I must admit it turned out to be more of a rant than any attempt at speed-running the model in question. Sorry (not sorry)… I have a love-hate relationship with Rhino (and this forum) that’s difficult for me to temper.
If any McNeel employee actually watches this to the end, I’m going to be very impressed!
Great. Now how about doing that automatically behind the scenes whenever you use sub object select to move a face (or control point) on a closed polysurface, so users don’t have to rely on Rhino’s super flaky history?
Actually, FilletEdge already support recording history. It just needs the addition of a Delete Input = No options. I have already logged this requirement to our development engineers.
Until you want to do a second fillet on the same object? Come on, are you saying that users are required to have a couple of dozen copies for objects if they want to add a couple of dozen fillets?
. This is indeed a very early demonstration about Grasshopper for solid modeling, mainly using Boolean operations for modeling design. Starting from Rhino 8, Boolean commands for solids support recording history, so now this model can basically be completed in 
. I do the same - export and do fillets in other cad.