Thank you for your feedback. Recording history is indeed easily broken. To use recording history effectively at present, a reasonable logicaly modeling sequence is required. It’s similar to using Grasshopper for modeling-how you manage the data is very important.
Indeed, consider the components in GH: each time a calculation is completed, a result is generated. What do you do when the result from the second component comes out and you don’t want to see the result from the previous component anymore? You hide the previous result, right? Of course, an object management interface similar to the GH Canvas would also be needed. This is just my personal, tentative suggestion for your referece. Thank you again.
Do you realize the object management nightmare you expect your users to juggle by doing that manually? Do you realize what you’ll essentially will force your users to turn the layers panel into?
Ok, that’s enough forum for me now. Time to log off for another couple of months…
Perhaps a separate interface is needed here specifically for managing the recording history, so that the issue you’ve currently mentioned wouldn’t arise.
As an industrial designer, I would execute such a task in Plasticity or Fusion. With NX it took 3 minutes. With Rhino it took 30 minutes. That said, I have yet to see a colleague in this industry sector (Japanese/German tier-1 brand) “designing by CAD” as shown in the OP. There is an enormous amount of work (read design process) going into the design of a tier-1 camera.
The comment was more about the failing of basic fillets. But this has been addressed plenty on the forum so we don’t need to get into a fillet discussion here.
Since McNeel has for the past decades been adamant that Rhino isn’t a parametric modeler, I very deliberately said several times in my rants that it doesn’t have to be. There’s alternative ways to do it that’s equally as good, and the synchronous modeling in NX is one way, and for example the way Alias does it is another.
This is the key. The “arriving at” by pushing and pulling elements has some utility for working out an idea. Never for something like this camera body object. It feels like a marketing trick aimed at non practitioners. PTC has always run similar non-relevant but slick demos.
The approach to model this in in Rhino is the reverse. Take the final shape, designer drawings, competitive product photos, technican shells, etc. and figure out the way to surface build it efficently and with control.
This challenge would be more informative to start with a camera body, a few views, and issue the brief to model it in Rhino. The NX workflow, while impressive, is nothing like the way I have used Rhino for 30+ years, I don’t even know where to start. Certainly it is not the way a surface model is developed in my experience for industry.
I’m sorry but your post is not relevant to this discussion. Pushing and pulling is very useful when it comes to design changes, and the video demonstrates how quickly and easily NX can do a design change, while in Rhino (especially if you have filleted) even the simplest design change takes a lot of time (and we haven’t even discussed drafting yet or tapering as Rhino calls it, which is another thing you have to do in a different CAD package in order to stay effective).
@eobet 10/10 perfect video! Thank you so much for taking the time to make this. I finished watching it once. I am planning on watching it again after I have a chance to digest it… and will take notes.
To anyone else on the fence about making such a video:
Please don’t watch @eobet ‘s first, I wouldn’t want you to be biased!
It’s fine to rant, it’s fine if the video is even an hour long. I will watch it.
@eobet ‘s video is a goldmine for me; I’m sure yours will be, too.
I will definitely buy @eobet a drink of his choice if I ever meet him in person!
@nxakt I appreciate the sentiment and that you think that this is not how Rhino should be used. That’s fine. Please, let’s keep this thread on topic. If you think Rhino’s surfacing tools also need improvement, let’s make a separate thread called “Record yourself surfacing these cameras!” (or something). I invite you to be the first to record yourself doing so, like @eobet has done. It will be a great resource for us to help improve Rhino’s surfacing tools as well as its direct modeling capabilities. Thanks!
The video showing the modeling process is at the link below; I’ve also attached the final CAD data.
"I wasn’t satisfied with a few parts, so I deleted them and re-created them from scratch as surfaces. This added about 5-10 minutes to the total duration, so you might want to watch it at 1.25x or 1.5x speed.
This is a useful perspective for me to have, thanks for sharing it.
That said, I would have to assume that at least some parts of the direct modeling features that support “design by CAD” would also be very useful for surfacing, just in terms of reducing the number of clicks needed to get from point A to point B. Also, reduce the amount a designer would have to go back and redo things from the ground up if they wanted to change something more macro.
