If you have the time, I would recommend spending some time going through the grasshopper primer to see if it fits your needs.
Yes, I think I had somewhat come to that conclusion as well with no luck sniffing for a path to stick with Rhino, but I was hoping I was missing something … it wouldn’t have been the first time.
It’s just that an equal amount of research on the ‘parametric’ software side seemed to show that many CADCAM SW outfits view small prototype shops as a target market not worth accommodation or that their fixed costs are so high and their seat volume so low they are automatically priced out of the lower end of the market … or at least I haven’t made that right product connection yet.
Add to the price issue cloud/subscription-only operating models that revert your workflow to cripple or dead mode if ANY circumstance prevents my system from communicating to an authentication algorithm 4000 miles away … and I have to have the faith to trust my entire investment (including mine and my customers’ IP) to a company whose EULA only offers a one way indemnification (to them) that leaves my biz totally unprotected.
I don’t mind paying well for good value in a fair exchange, but a badly risked deal just has to be left on the table.
I would be curious to know just how many businesses are now finding themselves facing this conundrum or will discover it later at an inopportune time after a wildfire, earthquake, marketing policy change, company buyout, bankruptcy or business conditions that lead the software supplier to simply turn off their servers to go do something else. Thus leaving the seat holder staring at a blank screen with ten upset customers on the phone and an unforgiving banker calling the note on his idle VMC.
Stuff happens … and will continue to happen.
It’s a bit of a minefield out there.
Thanks for your thoughts and assistance!
Bruce
Mark,
Being a better modeler is a super critical factor in prototyping. If a customer has a person that models better and/or faster, I don’t get the work. So learning curve is a major, big time hurdle to get right up front because of the size productivity dent it is … Opportunity cost. Still that is just a portion of the whole.
For example, I spent about a man-month learning a CAM plugin for Rhino. I was able to mod their basic ISO post processor and make some really nice demo cuts on a large VMC. Quick, nice Rhino surfaces to aluminum and cold rolled steel with reasonable work time. Not perfect, but pretty darn good tech/price point and SW biz risk. Switching from Rhino now discards that effort. But at least it wasn’t a two year learning/experience curve with customers at risk.
You can see the point and its seriousness.
Making the wrong software pick that (for whatever reason) forces you to go up one more unexpected learning curve X months later could be quite threatening to putting staples on the table.
Best regards,
Bruce
1 Like
I have both the RhinoWorks plugin previously mentioned and Grasshopper. I’ve found Grasshopper to be far more widely useful and amazingly powerful and flexible.
I use Grasshopper for parametric control and generation of guitar parts and complete electric guitar and bass models.
If you’d like to capitalize on the time investment you’ve already made in Rhino I’d recommend trying to build something simple in Grasshopper to see if you get along with it. You might find that it’s more powerful than traditional parametric modeling in the long run.
My 2cents.
3 Likes
Hi Bruce,
I’ve used Autodesk Inventor & Rhino for many years.
I used SW for a few years and then discontinued using it.
Inventor and SW each require a different mindset.
If you like simple, you won’t like SW.
If you can handle command-rich/work-flow poor, then get SW.
Inventor is simpler, but lacks surfacing capability compared to SW.
Inventor has superior metadata control.
Most of the machine shops and engineering firms use SW instead of Inventor.
That means interchangeability of models (if they’re on the same software version).
SW tech support is excellent.
Inventor tech support sucks.
Rhino, has excellent surfacing capabilities for basic surfacing, but gets limited and error-prone when things get highly detailed or more complex. Rhino surfacing is more ‘linear’ then ‘organic’.
One reason I used Rhino a limited amount of times during my career is b/c Rhino lacks parametric modeling, which is the very thing you want.
OTOH, I’m back to using Rhino full-time b/c I began doing scanning and RE work. However, I’m now finding that Rhino lacks some of the most basic commands to edit meshes and process point data. Also, CMM input now sucks in Rhino. It lacks ball tip compensation, which is extremely important for capturing point data accurately.
So now I’m stuck again, and the only solution is very expensive software for hybrid modeling, which I can’t afford.
I said all that to show you that each package has its limitations.
But if you’re in CNC work, then everybody I know in your line of work uses SW, not Inventor, and certainly not Rhino.
Cheers …
Depends on what kind of cnc work… I use Rhino nearly all of the time. And for some complex 3D-milling toolpaths I switch to fusion360.
We use SWX for design, but for anything CNC related, Rhino is our preferred CAD. Has been for almost 17 years.
Dan
I agree. Anybody who says Rhino is not suitable for generating models that can be used for CNC machining doesn’t know what they are talking about.
siemen/Dan/jim,
How can I argue w/your opinion, esp. here in the Rhino forum?!
However, in 25 years of CAD work, about 10% of which involves CNC fabrication, I never met anybody who even knew what Rhino was!
Gotta wonder what’s up w/that, eh?
I’ve tried using Rhino during my 25 years and it doesn’t even come close to the benefits of parametric solids modeling for the work that most fabricators want done, not by any stretch of the imagination. But when it comes to simple to moderately complex surfaces, nothing beats Rhino for the price! It’s a good thing I use it only about 10% of the time, or else I’d be on the bread line, b/c nobody in business would be willing to pay the price for how long it takes to modify surface-designs and then re-fit them into larger assemblies in a non-Rhino modeler (I gave up on that “wish list” item a LONG time ago!). Only the ‘high-and-mighty’ can compete in that world (e.g., Catia).
That’s what I found to be the case in my world of operations.
You are just parroting marketing nonsense that has nothing to do with CNC machining. A person can model a part in Rhino and then export that part to a CAM application where toolpaths are created and sent to a CNC machine. There is nothing in that process that requires parametric solid modeling. The process works just fine using Rhino.
Pretty close to 100% of the models I create (with Rhino) get CNC machined. And none of the crap you are claiming is essential to CNC machining is involved. I just finished modeling the tooling for a Multi-stage pump impeller that a SWX user had spent 2 weeks trying to model and failed. The blueprint for this part was drawn in the 1940’s. There is no benefit at all from using parametric solid modeler - It only got in the way.
4 Likes
Hi jim,
How can I argue w/your experience?
Can you post a 3d model in pdf of your part that SW failed to create? I’d luv to see it!
Cheers …
a long long long long long very long time ago in a forum far far away…
Yep.
Yep.
I used Rhino in conjunction with CAM for 10 years in my prototype shop, both modeling stuff for clients as well as importing files from programs from SW to Pro-E (now Creo) to Alias. Rhino is superb for editing complex models and creating fixtures for machining as well as for fixing errors created by those other programs…
–Mitch
1 Like
No I can not post the model, but the issue was not that SWX failed to create a model. I was told the SWX model was not usable for CNC machining or manufacturing the part. The point is that there is no magic in SWX that makes 3d models that are any more useful for CNC machining than Rhino can make.
I have spent plenty of time fixing up SWX models so that they could be machined. I’m not saying that would be impossible to do in SWX but for whatever reason it often is not done.
1 Like
We produce between 52-55K parts per year. Every one is unique, and everyone gets touched by Rhino before going to CAM (or with madCAM and RhinoCAM, it stays in Rhino). We are doing this in 3 countries, and I would have to say, we’ve been extremely successful with this approach.
I could count on one hand how many times a “parametric” model was necessary over the last 17 years and 100’s of 1000’s of parts. Actually, I take that back. I can’t even come up with that many scenarios.
Dan
1 Like
There’s a tool for every job. If Rhino isn’t right for your projects, then by all means use something else. That is to be expected. If it didn’t work for us we would have moved on a long time ago. But it “certainly” does work, and it works very well for us.
you will find everywhere persistence its a natural thing, dont take that personal.
i am curious how that flights looked like you did not manage in rhino? i can imagine that getting a correct spiral helix shape may be a bit of an issue, i recently also had noticed. but when you know how to derive a structure then rhino can always bring you there. of course if you have some tool which shits out a structure in 3 seconds then its probably pretty specialized. in my opinion rhino is not a specialized, but a very versatile very open “platform” with many possibilities and abilities. the following juxtaposition may be a little profane, still you cant compare a milking machine with the hands of a diligent but very versatile farmers wife who can do many other things with her hands. i mean you sure have many options with any other software and i am sure if you know how to handle each then all of them can bring you there and all of them also pretty fast if you get a routine.
Like jim says, the discussion is moot as far as CNC-milling is concerned.
One can model parts properly in any 3D software - to then have the machine’s G-code or M-code generated by some CAM software via CL-data and post-processor.
Whether the part was modeled in Catia, Rhino, Kewl-Worx or ColdFusion720 is irrelevant. The question, rather, is if the part can be modelled efficiently as intended and to the correct output quality and in budget.
The original poster’s issue was that he apparently found insurmountable limitations in SolidWorks. It would have been interesting what these were, as many offices use a larger palette of 3D modeling tools.
Happy Easter and a merry 2025 to all.
3 Likes
Richard,
Find attached a screen shot of the 3d model done in Inventor, along with 2 Rhino files: The red one was done by me, the drum was done by someone at McNeel. I couldn’t use the method that McNeel suggested. it was impossible to get a Class A surface out of Rhino that would flatten (to be laser cut out of plate) and then be roll-formed into flight segments.
MixerDrum&Flights.pdf (720.9 KB)
_Wireframe-CementMixerDrum1a.3dm (514.0 KB)
CementThing.3dm (158.4 KB)
What do you mean by “derive a structure”?
I agree it’s hard to compete w/the high-dollar programs like TEKLA, Catia, etc. Who can afford them (besides governments and corporate cartels)?
Lagom,
I’m sure you’re right. I’ve seen it. I agree, would have been interesting to see the impossible project.
Why would a drum mixer need a “Class A surface”? The term “Class A surface” usually refers to a finished show surface for an automobile, consumer good, etc.