How Is XNurbs Compared to Old VSR?

Please, I would just like to hear from someone that was (or still is) using VSR. I tried reading through this thread, but it’s mostly 520 posts on mac vs pc and the finer points of software piracy:

1 Like

Xnurbs is only 1 surfacing tool. VSR as you know was a fairly complete toolset. You can do the trial of xnurbs if your interested. Good luck Eric. —-Mark

it’s actually 2: an advanced patch tool for multisided patches (trimmed) with individual control of continuity (G0/G1/G2) for each matching edge and a more advanced type of Networksurface (quad/untrimmed) also with individual continuity control per edge up to G2.
@Vladimir_Aleksic uses both so he can tell you more

Other’s experiences will be different than mine for sure, but in my particular case, I’ve never been able to do anything particularly good with VSR. Lots of nice display modes, arrows, colors, analysis stuff, but the actual surfaces that makes are always about the same, or worse than native Rhino ca do.

I haven’t tried XNurbs yet, waiting until floating license via Zoo is available, but they have shown some really good example of finishing up a model with very good explicit control of boundaries’ continuity.

Call it one tool, two tools vs. many tools… who cares. What matters is that you need to make a surface near/touching other surfaces and this thing seems to do the job quite well.

Also VSR doesn’t really exists anymore. So does it even matter how good it was?


VSR shape is a complete set of tools for achieving Class-A surface quality that far exceed what Rhino’s tools could do. Sadly, it works only with Rhino 5. Rhino 6 does not feature a flawless support for legacy plugins.

Xnurbs is a very good patch tool that also has some basic functionality that resembles Rhino’s “Network surface”, “Blend surface”, “Loft” and “Sweep 2 rails”, but it can’t replace them entirely. For example, Rhino’s “Blend surface” is far superior, especially when it’s combined with “Match surface”. In many examples Xnurbs fails to deliver good control point flow, but it’s constantly improved by its creator, so maybe it could get better in a few months or years. Only time will tell.

I should have asked how it compares to VSR’s MultiBlend. There were plenty of cases that VSR choked on. I need quick prototype/proof of concept patches that are watertight and look good with jagged fast preview meshes, not something that holds up to zebra analysis.

Is XNurbs more or less durable? Does it produce lightweight patches with an intelligent isocurves structure?

It sounds like I should give it a shot. I’ll still have to keep v5 for VSR. Again there’s plenty of problems with VSR, but it can do things that native blends can’t do like when form-finding. Being able to edit the target surfaces and the blend at the same time is huge. I really wished the history enabled blends in V6 would do this, but they can’t. You have to edit the blend and switch from G2 -> G1 -> G2 to trigger an update to the blend’s parameterization.

not sure what you mean by ‘intelligent structure’. It can produce light weight patches, but as soon as you want it to meet 0.001 G0 tolerance, it will generally end up in a quite dense structure that will not be editable by hand. For quick prototype/proof of concept, I’d say it’s an excellent tool.

I have the VSR toolset and in my opinion XNurbs is better than MultiBlend. It may depend on your geometry, but I find it very useful. XNurbs is also really good at making 4-sided surface patches with varying edge conditions.

I would encourage you to download the trial and give it a go. It’s been a great addition to my Rhino Toolbox.


VSR allows you to create class A surface which means extreme lightweight and quality surface models. It does not only provide fundamental tools for this kind of modelling, it also provides the required analytic capebility. However it requires knowledge about class A and its ideas. If you don’t know much about it or you don’t follow them, then using VSR is rather confusing and appears to be cumberstone and often pointless.

Multiblend is the worst tool in this chain, because it tries to solve a situation which shouldn’t be solved like this. XNurbs does the same and but it does a better job. For someone lacking the knowledge or having no time in making good cornerblends, this tool yield quite amazing results in a bruteforce way. It fits in a heavy surface patch forces higher continuity and “smoothes” the surface. So you get acceptable results but very bad surfaces.

If this is good or not is really up to someones philosophy and requirements. So you cannot compare them without comparing “Class A” with “No-matter-how-it-just-needs-to-look-good” philosophies. Which both are valid.


compare with 4 edges surfaces with class A method. muti-blend and xnurbs is just tricking your eyes .
but it is useful tool if you needn’t care