Here is an example of something i have done. Ive scanned and brought into fusion. modeled the area i needed and used that section to cut away part of a model so that it fit the way i wanted it to. This is a display housing for and escort radar system in a lamborghini huracan. Next i have posted the same scan file uploaded into rhino. I had to reduce it to fit on here. How do i start to achieve the same results or better in rhino without using shrinkwrap
I now realize the rhino file is a terrible example to put on here reduced to nothing. But imagine it has the same resolution as the fusion file and i want to reproduce the same result.
Im still trying to figure out how to us meshes in rhino so im not sure what that model i posted has been though to be honest. i may have converted it to nurbs at one point and thats the layering youre seeing. I only took one scan. it had all the info i needed. Im also trying to figure out what you did there. looks like you did quad remesh then turned it back into a mesh. How did you do that?
if you have something that need to be very detail then I look at the scan and figure out how I want to split up the part in different surfaces.
I usually take the lines directly from the mesh(contour/intersect with the mesh) and the transform it into a nice curves. Afterwards I add surfaces. One plugin I enjoy to use for surfacing is Xnurbs. I still have a learning to do about surfacing and Xnurbs is good for starting (at least for me)
If for a fast modelling i use the quadremesh command and convert into subD . (and if need then convert that to nurbs)
Using quadremesh I chose the option to convert to subd, then later converted the subd to mesh, then decimated the mesh by 90%.
Itās really fun messing around with Rhinoās new subd/mesh/nurbs sequences.
The tricky one though is the nurbs, cause itās probably not a good idea to ever go from mesh-to-nurbs directly. I always use meshes with subd, and if I want nurbs then I use subd-to-nurbs.
Even then though, the nurbs come out to be slightly complex, so Iād technically recommend working directly with sub-D as much as possible, especially cause theyāre that awesome new format introduced only recently in the last few versions of Rhino.
The subd-to-nurbs conversion sequence, if I use it, I usually end up manually modifying the isocurves of the nurbs for sure, at some point.
I think of sub-dās as a really cool way to control mesh modeling in Rhino, at least until they add better mesh tools
But sub-dās are awesome too. One of the really cool things I like about subdās is the ability to smooth out control points that you select at any given time, you can select some and just smooth them easily and quickly. This is not as easy in the other formats imo.
The nurbs smoothing under the moveUVN command is really outdated. There should be much better smoothing tools for nurbs, but the subd option is way better anyway atm.
how long have you been using rhino? Ive been using it for 4 months. I imagine its going to be about a year before I feel like i have any proficiency. The learning curve is pretty steep, thuogh i can make correlations between this and fusion. i kind of feel as if i learn subd in one it will translate well to the other. Im picking up nurbs at the same time which is a different language from what im used to. Surfacing in rhino and solid models in fusion is what im after i think. Do you know any good tutorials based onwhat weve been talking about?
I started using Rhino sometime between 2004-2006, but I wasnāt using it daily until about 2008-2009. Nowadays I donāt always get to use it every day, but I can say I use it weekly and I do try to hang out in the forum every day or every other day or at least once or twice a week.
I have some new projects that will hopefully give my more seat time.
Yeah itās mind blowing, thereās really no limit imo. Time will tell.
Rhino is very interesting compared to the other CADās. Rhino is like a surgical tool that can fix anything or repare any geometry that other CADās mess up. And it can be used somewhat as a file converter or format converter per say.
And Rhinoās license agreements are some of the best ever, so why use any other CAD? Rhinoās the best.
You could just do solids in Rhino, and develop plugins so we can use parametric constraints and component assemblies We just need to make the Eto Frameworks lol.
Not necessarily. Iām not very good about remembering videos and stuff, but @theoutside is a great source for videos and @Rhino_Bulgaria Thereās others too, plus Rhinoās websites. If I stumble on any Iāll try linking them. There might even be short videos in threads here somewhereā¦
If I get time I might try to make new ones or somem.
I can give you a bit more detail about the work process. Are you having trouble figureing out which command to use or how to make curves from the mesh?
I dont have any formal education in rhino but I have used it for approx 9 years now. So there might be a more correct way to do this then the one I am using
I think for me it was to figure out the basic of rhino afterwards i dug into all the commands that exist and try to make a list of the ones i thought was helpful . If i didnt use them often I would forget the command fast even though it was a very useful one.
Would you say that you could choose rhino to do all of your cad work in? Even tight tolerance stuff? Im about 3 months into this and im picking it up at the rate i expected. Things just have just been starting to click. So your statement of why not just use rhino got me thinking. I designed that model in fusion and the cutting plane. So i tried to design it in rhino and had some interesting results. I first attempted a nurbs model, which didnāt go so well. I then tried a sub d model and things went a bit better. After forgetting a few rules and trying again I ultimately got exactly what i wanted except i got there in about 1/3 the time it would have taken in fusion. What i found to be the biggest difference was the amount of control i had over the shape of the model itself. What im still a bit unclear on is how to control the dimensions. It seems like it could be easier than trying to remember all your starting parameters and doing math based on that. Either way here are my results and i think maybe next ill attempt to make the cutting plane from the scan and maybe split the part if i can figure out how to model on the scan.
So pertaining to my original question. if you had a complicated assembly like a power drill with moving parts and screws and switches and all that would you still choose rhino for the task? Also curious, do you have experience in other software to compare it to? I ask because i can already see some strengths in rhino that are apparently lacking in fusion. Which is exciting, but can it completely replace a parametric software on the design side? Because this might prompt me to start looking for a CAM solution that doesnāt cost an months rent every year.
So pertaining to my original question. if you had a complicated assembly like a power drill with moving parts and screws and switches and all that would you still choose rhino for the task? Also curious, do you have experience in other software to compare it to? I ask because i can already see some strengths in rhino that are apparently lacking in fusion. Which is exciting, but can it completely replace a parametric software on the design side? Because this might prompt me to start looking for a CAM solution that doesnāt cost an months rent every year.
Personally no - I would never do the bulk of my design work in Rhino. With paramatric software I can make a change to the wall thickness of that drill housing & most of the part will update properly (ie. bosses, ribs and other features will update along with the wall thickness and be in the correct position). Or if a client walks in and requests some other design change - with parametric software thatās not much of a hassle.
The issue with Rhino for that kind of design isnāt so much the actual design, itās modifying the design where I find it doesnāt work for me. I need the flexibility to make quick design changes that propagate through the model.
(Busy working on a product right now and after 3d printing decided the wall thickness needed to increase 0.2mm. I could make that change and all the components updated & kept their relative distance away from the wall, ribs stayed the same height from the surface etc. I canāt really imagine making a change to a complex part like this in Rhino.)
Well, prior to learning Rhino, I had already learned pretty much everything the world had to offer relative to advanced parametric solid modeling.
The first reason I ever started learning Rhino, was to archive all the work Iād done in every other CAD Iād used at the time. See, I knew I needed to convert all my data into a format that Iād be able to access at some point in the future. So I quickly went on a journey for the first time in Rhino doing file conversions and getting all my data into STEP and IGES formats. That way in the future Iād have all my work archived and useable someday when I needed it.
I was taking a break from college at the time, and knew as I was going into the workforce I needed a contingency plan with all the content I created using every program they had in the CAD lab from 2004-2007 Inventor, CATIA , etc.
I think they had a super old version of Rhino at their lab, maybe version 2. And they never put it into their curriculums that I know of, so not even sure why they had it.
Unfortunately, I wasnāt very impressed with that old version, but I was happy to use it for creating my STEP and IGES files
Long story short, Rhino has come a long way in the almost 20 yrs that Iāve seen it, and because their licensing is so awesome and price so affordable, I decided recently to fully commit to the Rhino wave-line.
Yes, I believe thereās nothing Rhino canāt do ā itās simply a matter of time. Between, their open-nurbs initiative, plug-ins, and Eto-Frameworks, as well as Grasshopper, what more proof do you need that the possibilities are limitless.
I chuckle when ppl say āRhino isnāt thisā or āRhino isnāt thatā, cause thereās always a solution to solve things in Rhino.
About the only argument any user can make against Rhino is $$$$ related and temporary licensing related.
Letās say Rhino, in the last 20 yrs, has gone from top 10 to top 5 best CADās available, while also being the most affordable, and actual license to use for the foreseeable future, with no annual maintenance fees or hidden fees.
So, which CAD would you dedicate your valuable time to for the foreseeable future? Inventor, SolidWorks, CATIA?
The cost just isnāt worth it. Even though I could use the other CADās, why spend 10Xās or 100Xās the ammount?
Iād rather buy Rhino every time they upgrade, and bug the devs as much as possible
Thatās very interesting. Iām glad to hear that.
Ikr, but I havenāt been able to get the devs to gimmie parametric constraints yet, but I think they brought back development in the recent WIP. Unfortunately I havenāt checked yet.
I think they werenāt taking the right approach before in the V8 WIP prior to the release and then they delayed access again until recently on the V9 WIP.
Thereās some new characteristics with dimensions where you can get them to update depending on how theyāre linked, like through grouping or history. But Iām not really a fan of history or grouping necessarily.
Thereās also the whole Grasshopper thing, but Iāve heard that GH not very good at loops yet or something. So, we need GH to get some loops.
Iāve seen @DanielPiker do very phenomenal stuff with Kangaroo and constraint looking assemblies. This convinces me that Rhino has that ability for sure. I still have lots of learning to do with that though.
Well, thatās a very important and fair question. Some would say āno thatās not Rhino, Rhino is not a kinematic simulatorā or somem.
But like Iāve said, my honest answer is yes, yes Rhino can do that. You can buy a plugin, or make a plugin or use Grasshopper/Kangaroo, or make a GH plugin or make an Eto Framework, if one doesnāt already exist.
So, the reason I purposefully take this approach with Rhino, is kind of like a āfrom the last hopeā standpoint. Cause literally the only two other alternatives are: Either you spend 10xās or 100xās more money on a temporary license to lease higher-end software till the end of time, with endless annual maintenance fees, Or you start a software company and you create the software yourself.
Cuase there really isnāt any really good answers to those fair and simple questions. I could go deeper down the rabbit hole with why I think thereās a gaping hole in the world of CAD/CAM/CNC, but I like to keep it simple here with the fact that Rhino is my last hope, and Iām backing it up with my precious time, because Rhino is worth every minute of it ā unless something changes that makes me lose that hope.
So, Iām ok with the bugs in Rhino 8 cause thatās how much I care about Rhino. Iāll point out the bugs whenever I can, but usually I have to surf over them or around them and get the job done to keep bread and butter on the table. And Rhino has very broad horizons on how to solve many many problems.
I also like to spend time here in the forum and catch up on other users pointing out the bugs too, so I can get their perspectives and learn how things are going with improving things, either that Iām also experiencing or maybe havenāt noticed or put my thumbs on yet.
Itās nice cause I do see things getting fixed and getting much better over time. It just takes time, cause the devs have a huge pile of jobs to sort through. We users got to make sure they get plenty of work. Sometimes they give us work too, when they want our performance reports and files so they can repeat the results or when they want us to make plugins like @jim making his really awesome super duper fillets Still waiting for his food4rhino link and buy now button.
Thereās a few other CADās Iāve had my eye on. I do own a license or two for Alibre design, 3Dcoat, Plasticity, etc.
But in the end, itās all about which CAD is worth your time and energy, and I know Rhino is worth it 110%.
Yes, I have used the best of the best. Of course itās in the history books though. I canāt say Iāve used any high end stuff in recent years, as you know things evolve over time. Thatās why I donāt think it really makes sense to get certified in the use of any software, cause those things change. I might say "yeah man I was so good with SolidWorks, CATIA, Inventor, etc, prior to 2013, but itās been ten years
I canāt imagine how cool those programs would be these modern days, with high end computers. Or I can only imagine. Iām also probably $100k or more richer, buy not having those license fees.
Of course if you were building rocket ships then money might not be an issue. But Iām not at that level yet. Maybe someday, or maybe I wont even be able to blow that kind of money regardless, just out of principle.
Technically, if I were building rocket ships Iād do it with Rhino anyways, or even still use Rhino.
I heard a saying once back in the day, that all these huge companies might have the highest-end CADās but they still have Rhino! Itās like āwhy not?ā haha.
The last time I played around with kinematic assembly stuff was when I was playing around with Fusion360 or InventorFusion360 when it was basically Beta stage, before they released it and got all silly calling it just Fusion.
The biggest issue my company still has with programs like that is the security risk of ācloud basedā data storage. Itās like a law of physics. Why would anyone want their sensitive proprietary technology located on a cloud server somewhere. It just makes no sense, especially the more Microsoft makes there operating system violate our data.
So thatās another thing. The whole Linux pathway ā huge tangent. Another thread on that.
Iām reiterating this cause itās definitely important question. The short answer is yes. Parametric solid modeling is more of a luxury than a necessity.
Yes, if you were doing a whole buch of 2.5D geometry all the time building basic simple stuff like flat planar square round plates blocks holes etc, then yeah maybe a parametric solid modeler program would make sense, even though they can be pricey.
I suppose you can go with the cheap stuff too cause thereās a few out there, but you get what you pay for, and ultimately itās your time thatās the most critical resource in the long run.
If I were to bite the bullet I would probably choose Autodesk Inventor, but that would cost me $2,500/yr minimum. Then Iād have to add Inventor CAM, for another $3,265/yr.
The only other options Iād consider would be SolidWorks, for about $3,456/yr or CATIA for about $7,560/yr. Minimum, cause who knows what āpackagesā Iād want to add down the line.
Unfortunately the CAM part is a worse situation than the CAD part. Itās like the closer you get to going the speed of light, the more money you need to get there. Not to mention the secret knowledge you need that would save you money.
Iāve seen some users here showing some threads on CAM stuff being done in Grasshopper, which is very encouraging to me, relative to the future of the human race.
Thereās many many bad things I have to say about the CAM industry, but I have to be somewhat careful here, I donāt want to hurt feelings
Letās just say, I choose to believe Rhino someday will be a CAM program too, cause thatās what I think is possible based on everything Iāve seen. And if I get proven wrong then Iāll just have to write the plugin myself
Yeah you can buy houses still with what CAM costs lol, and their 10-15 percent annual fees and post processor fees etc. Not to mention their bugs and deficiencies.
Idk, hyperinflation kinda made it harder to buy houses but still
So I think youāre just trying to model this like you did in Fusion, but you already did in Fusion? Why not import that work into Rhino via STL, IGES,IGS,STEP,STP? Unless you did some of that already idkā¦
I do some RE work from time to time. I use Rhino 5 with VSR shape and mesh2surface for generating perfect cylinders from holes. There are basic Rhino work flows that will work without plugins. Section curves, splits, lofts, point editing etc. Rhino has an absolutely brilliant command for checking the accuracy of your RE surfaces, PointDeviation.
As a small studio, we use Rhino exclusively for product design, and maintain moderately sized assemblies.
In fact, we use Rhino to generate concepts, prototypes, final designs, CGIs, instruction manualsā¦ the lot!
I have a Fusion licence, the only time I use it is for unrolling sheet metal designs before they are sent out to fabricators. But even these parts are originally designed in Rhino.
There are benefits to parametric software, the trade off we find beneficial with Rhino is speed and flexibility, which usually results in a quicker-turn-around and overall lower cost.
Even if some remodelling is required through the design process, this can be effectively managed using Layers and organised construction geometry.
my intent was to see a comparison of how modelling worded in rhino vs fusion. Ive already finished that job. I was just trying to se how it might have gone if i was more proficient in rhino and chose that route. And seemingly so, i think it would have been a streamlined experience. I have yet to attempt the modelling from a mesh part of this. Thatās my next move i just have to make time. Been busy. but i will be posting my results here
So maybe I dont have the experience to know the answer to this question but if i was designing said drill and i had rhino and also parametric software why wouldnāt i use both for this? design the body in rhino and add the mechanical parts in fusion?
Am i on the right track here? This is basically how you RE in rhino in subD? Ive seen videos on how to re with a nurbs surface. And plenty of videos on subD. But theres nothing out there that explains what im attempting here. I know the scan isnt great and its not even in mesh format but is this something people do regularly? In fusion i have done this to an entire model and it seems to be the same idea. I get the feeling i have much more freedom in rhino and if this is on track then ill be ecstatic and me and rhino are gonna do karate in the garage.
Did that work? Id like you to see this as well. I think this is what im after. At least this is a very simplified version of what after. But you get the point. Any feedback or advice or input would be much appreciated. I think im following rule of three here.
Maybe this is simple stuff, maybe not. But the internet is very vague on how this stuff is done
Thereās others too, plus Rhinoās websites. If I stumble on any Iāll try linking them. There might even be short videos in threads here somewhereā¦
Inventor, CATIA , etc.
Itās like āwhy not?ā haha.
