I typically name the clipping Plane, maybe by default if we dont rename it should it be automatically renamed as "clipping plane 01 - 02 - 03 - and so on?
Will have to implement something simple first and we take it from there. Thanks for the input. I think I have enough to go with for now and we can refine as we go.
thank you so much for listening 
Pascal
I didn’t mean that and I don’t know what your assumption comes from.
I had a doubt about applying a new color to silhouette when option “maintain source layer” is selected so silhouette belongs to various layers but is distinguished somehow. Just a thought.
There are some very nice ideas being requested above. If all were to be realised, it also looks like they’d create a matrix of options that will easily balloon beyond what the mock-up UI shown could cope with. Would it be feasible to create a ‘workspace’ - like the one we currently see for Print, complete with expanding menus etc - which would possibly even preview the Make2D output?
@Runnie
Is your proposal similar to VisualARQ features? That would be great…
hey buddy, 
yes, exactly although I havent really looked at visualARQ in detail. well to be honest I have never used VisualARQ in any project so I dunno if it is as good as Revit? I sincerely hope to see Rhino goes full BIM in the near future. (maybe Im just being selfish)
"I sincerely hope to see Rhino goes full BIM in the near future."
It’s the voice from all users in architectural field.
I personally not expecting like Revit (I wish but…let’s face the reality…) at least real time update feature that VisualARQ brings… Section and Floor plans.
Needless to say the best solution is Mcneel owns VisualARQ… 
No negative comment on VisualARQ, at least the developer knows problems and will add basic missing features in next release… that is positive…
That’s exactly what we all want 
as long as it remains a plug in, it will never be implemented in real project. there is no way the other party (Engineer Consultant, M&E , QS) want to spend more money to get a plug in that is not widely used even in Rhino community itself.
yes, definitely get the basic BIM embeded in Rhino is a good start, and slowly approach to full BIM-oriented documentation but it should start from now, otherwise we wouldnt have time to catch up.
I have the feeling in 5 years, the regulation will call for BIM obligation in medium scale project. (for developing country)
Rhino owning VisualARQ is still possible, I saw other big developer buy and even recruit the plug in crew to become their employee.
so if all the architects in RHino speak louder, I think that can become true.
I think you’ll find that the people at McNeel don’t think of themselves this way. Maybe sometime soon they’ll face up to the fact that they now are.
VisualARQ is owned by a part of the McNeel Worldwide ownership group. There are shared employees. The VisualARQ development team has access to the Rhino source code.
We have worked hard to make sure that Rhino is generic enough to support all disciplines and the plug-ins needed to support those disciplines.
Is that possible to add “Meshoutline” in the Make2D option menu?
Normally to achieve this result, users have to Meshoutline on an object first and Make2D the object with rectangular viewport checked, and export to Adobe illustrator to overlap make2d drawings.
If developers can add this simple feature to the options menu you showed in the image, users don’t have to go through many processes.
Sample diagrams. This is why it’s useful.
These are all very valid ideas, but it is best if each new idea can start a new thread, so it can be discussed properly and other people can participate when they see a subject that is of interest to them.
Do you like the result to be in the 3D location? Do you only need it for ‘meshes’, or it can be any geometry type?
I wonder if it would work better a a separate command and not part of Make2D?
Matt, I think your concern is very valid and before we pile features, we need to carefully think about the UI and command flow. Any specific suggestions or a sketch of how you see the UI looks?
I think that is where you Rhino folks will earn your pay 
You guys have in the past come up with some beautifully elegant interfaces and work flows for such things (though less so more recently, it must be said, as feature sets have become more complex). There are so main permutations of options being discussed here that, if they were all to come to fruition, would make it very difficult for even the most experienced user to picture in their head. That is why I think some sort of preview function would be very useful, but I appreciate that a preview of the final Make2D output could be very difficult to realise. I was thinking of something very much along the lines of the Print setup environment, complete with all the collapsing options listed on the left hand side, so that one could go through them setting things up. That way, existing Rhino users won’t have to get used to a new interface. I can see the permutations matrix being of a very similar level of complexity to the Print options.
As for the preview facility, would it perhaps be possible to employ display modes (like Technical, for example) to provide this? The subject of not being able to ‘extract’ a vector version of what you see in Technical, Pen etc display modes has been the topic of much consternation for some users over the years. Using these modes for this purpose would perhaps give a neatly convergent solution for what has up to now been two ‘exclusive’ camps.
Then there’s clipping planes. I can see a lot of sense in being able to cue up several views of the same model, each employing different (perhaps even different combinations of) clipping planes, being able to preview them in this ‘Make2D’ environment, then taking a time out and letting Rhino rip with processing all of the views in a similar fashion to the old Badger plugin. That’s where a projected time/time to completion (as requested by Holo in the past) would be useful.
This may be something of a departure from the current approach, but I think it could add a very powerful tool to Rhino.
2 Likes
I have seen that the possibility of drawing isocurves in Make2D is under development.
It would be correct, for a display hierarchy, to represent isocurves with a line of thinner line than the silhouette or other curves.
Otherwise the result will be too flat and a mess of lines, in my opinion.
Thanks.