Modeling feature request for V6 - Fall-offs


#1

I’ve been learning Modo as it offers a very nice SubD toolset and a new pluggin called Mesh Fusion. MF is work the look as this is a real game changer for SubDs.

But Mesh Fusion isn’t the topic of this post.

The fall-offs in Modo are extremely powerful and something I’d love to see in Rhino. Here’s a video explaining them.

http://www.lynda.com/modo-tutorials/Understanding-falloffs/137885/152756-4.html


#2

The non-destructive booleans from Mesh Fusion are truly remarkable! Thanks for sharing this.

Out of curiosity, where does Rhino fit into your workflow? Does Rhino offer benefits over Modo for certain tasks?

~Dave


#3

Mesh Fusion is very useful!
I’ve been a Rhino user for quite awhile and am just starting to learn Modo because of MF. Up until a few weeks ago, 90% of my work was created in Rhino…great precision, stability and was the perfect platform for the rendering engines I liked to use. Modo’s rendering engine is ok but not my favorite. Brazil and Arion are what I like to use…and learning Rhino versions of Octane and Vray.

I do a lot of design work, product visualization and entertainment type projects. Most of which Rhino is just fine but time to time a project comes along which requires SubD’s so was the time to learn Modo.

Here’s a project, with front facing bevels which would be very difficult to create in Rhino…and all of the flourishes are booleaned and filleted together in Mesh Fusion. The fillets would be failing all over the place in Rhino.


#4

Stunning!

Sub-D’s are often very useful and I would love to stop leaning on Maya for this type of work. Is Modo as good (or better?) than Maya for Sub-D’s?

The Mesh Fusion capabilities in Modo seem like reason enough for trying Modo out. Too bad the stock renderer is not very good. My rendering needs are not very sophisticated, since my primary focus is digital fabrication. Which renderer for Modo would you recommend? Do you have any idea of Modo’s watertight analysis capabilities?

Many thanks!

~Dave


#5

I disagree that the stock renderer in modo isn’t very good. Some people like it, some don’t. I like it. I find it flexible, fast and it has a good preview engine. Try it out before you go looking for an alternative. It might suit your needs just fine. Definitely check out the gallery on the forum - some great stuff there and it will give you a sense of what’s possible.

And, concerning the OT - once you’ve used falloffs, you want them in every program you work with. One of the great features of modo that Rhino should find a way to adopt.


#6

I would say that Modo’s inbuilt renderer is the best (also Lightwave’s) of all inbuilt renderers out there. Of course it depends the kind of work you do, but I think it’s really good.

Two recent examples from Modo’s gallery
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=8&t=85195
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=8&t=78767


#7

Hey Dave,

I have no idea on how the SubDs compare between Maya and Modo…never used Maya.

Rendering engines can be very personal and also passionately debated…don’t discount Modo’s as it is capable. Just not my favorite for the work I do. I do use it for some work when I feel it’s the best render for the job and much of the geometry is already native to Modo. My only real complaint about Modo is it’s lack of stability at times. I’m spoiled by Rhino in this regard.