No worries, I hunt grunts only when I play “Halo”. 
With the “Grunt Birthday party” skull ability turned on.
In this forum, during the development of various versions of Rhino, we’ve all expressed criticism and concerns about the age-old issue of fillets implemented in Rhino.
We’re all well aware of the limitations and potential of this aspect of Rhino modeling. It’s pointless to level harsh criticism at a software that improves with each version.
We all want a CAD system that, at the push of a button, automatically creates the perfect fillet, the perfect surface, the perfect continuity, etc.
Let’s give it time and trust.
The important thing is to progress and improve. The fillets in Rhino 9 are certainly better and more robust than those made with Rhino 6, for example. If the opposite were true, it would be a disaster!
If Parasolid does better, I don’t know… the important thing is to bridge the gap between the two systems (two systems that enjoy different characteristics in terms of modeling type and development costs).
Some minor bug report for Plasticity:
You are using it totally wrong
First: I don’t hear any funky cyber punk music at all.
Second: the video is not sped up to get that fast fluid motion of robust filleting.
Third: of course the cream and cherry on top finale….it’s user error.
How can we just critique something properly when things are not put in the right context?
Oh mon Dieu the audacity…
Filleting in Plasticity failed a lot more than the same models I tried in Rhino, which is strange, considering all the bragging in Plasticity’s advertising. Even simple cases fail, not to mention the more complex ones.
I will take notes about the lack of cyberpunk music. My bad.
If youtube is anything to go by, they are using it mostly for game assets and such. I dont think they care much for AAA fillets..
The above example is on a very simple box model with 45-degree walls.
In their time-lapse videos they often brag about flawless fillets and complex geometry. In their videos related to car surfacing they replace each patch surface countless times until it achieve the desired look. In most occasions they simply end up with using Xnurbs, yet even it fails half of the time. It’s embarrassing.
And we kinda like Rhino, imagine if we don’t 
a love and hate relationship
i need to use solidworks for studies and work i curse every time i have to use it because of its extra steps
just saying no one escapes our endless nagging 
I like any software that gets a particular job done in time and on budget.
Hi
Yes this is the case and for VFX. I got a copy to use with blender but I still prefer Rhino.
If you really need a program you can grow into and one that will do not only conceptual work but one that creates real world products you must go with Rhino.
It’s not even close to solid modelers that I’ve used from the late 90s that used the same math kernel. The flaw is the auto filleting, though seemingly a good thing is actually a bad thing. Why because you need to build your model conceptually first before you run fillets and plastic stinks at precise block in. The lack of multiple viewports is a nightmare. Again the interface is like blender 2.0 but really poorly implemented. The feature tree is overly complex and lack of good 2d drawing tools makes it a pain to use.
I’m critical of Rhino but plastic stinks compared to Rhino, not in the same league.
Save your money and spend the extra 150 dollars on Rhino. When V9 is released one can purchase Rhino I think for around 450, that’s only 150 dollars more than plastic. What you get for that amount is 1000 times the tools and abilities that plastic has. And you’ll actually be able to market your work and do useful modeling that can earn you money. You might not need auto filleting but a good program to make architecture or products Rhino can do that but plastic can’t.
RM
Here is the same 100 mm box with 40 mm and 35 mm fillets, as well as 30 mm chamfers, that I repeated in Rhino. Using Rhino’s variety of tools makes it possible to achieve what’s not possible in Plasticity in this particular example.
Fillet fails in Plasticity, found a solution in Rhino.3dm (738.2 KB)
At the 1:18 minute of the video I had to use ! _FilletSrf, because the ! _FilletEdge failed to do a 40 mm fillet. The latter worked only on fillets with a radius of less than 35 mm, because the horizontal fillets made prior that step were also 35 mm. Most likely the variable conical fillet on the right side has caused some conflicts due to its radius being gradually smaller.
Yeah, the plasticity fillet sucks in that case. Autofillets are no silver bullet and at some point parasolid will just slap a terrible patch on problematic corners. It generally values stability (keeping that solid body a solid body at all cost, not creating holes) more than quality and pick a low quality solution if it keeps the surfaces “intact”. This is of course due to it’s use mostly in mechanical engineering where most don’t care much about surface quality. Plasticity/parasolid will also casually break G1 continuity to just make it “work”. You can think of that approach what you will. Their main advertisement argument is being “robust” afterall. No Software can absolve you from having to know what you are doing.
And don’t you think your video about Rhino “solving” the issue is a bit dishonest in that context when you basically handbuild the transition? I don’t see why you couldn’t do the same in plasticity too. What makes you say it is “not possible”?
Well, when it comes to engineering CAD work, generating proper radius fillets must be taken into consideration, because these are often times CNC-milled with a corresponding ball radius tool of the same radius. In my example, Plasticity generates a bad geometry with a highly distorted patch and a much smaller radius than the input 40 mm. A real-life ball tool with a 40 mm radius will never be able to carve that area, especially on a negative steel die for injection moulding.
Between years 2005 and 2015 I had to fix plenty of similar “forced automatic solutions” by the Parasolid kernel, made primarily in Solidworks. The reason being that they were unusable in the real World due to various gaps, self-intersections, inconsistent radius, duplicate surfaces, etc. You can see a good example for forced fake fillets in this video. These looked good until I opened them in Rhino and figured out that the geometry was a complete mess:
Why would a quick manual solution be called “dishonest”, when the sole purpose is to deliver a working geometry? Using the right set of tools that a CAD program offers is a good way for any modeler to be productive. This is especially important where manufacturing of real components within tolerances is involved.
Are you going to call the “Xnurbs” in the more expensive version of Plasticity “dishonest”, just because it’s included there, unlike the cheaper version of Plasticity and Rhino that both don’t have it by default? After all, these are tools, and their purpose is to help the modeler do the job faster and with the desired quality.
I’m still waiting someone good enough with Plasticity to capture and post a video showing an actual solution that maintains the 40 mm radius at the corner. The exact same triangle area where Plasticity generated an unwanted bulge with an extremely small radius. It does not matter that it’s “a forced automatic solution” when it’s not usable and needs to be deleted anyways.
The “dishonest” part is that both rhino and plasticity fail in this case with the basic fillet tools and the corner has to be reworked manually. Rhino isn’t “better” if you have to fix it by hand (as you could in plasticity too).
Well, as I mentioned numerous times before in this topic, I have tried the fillets tools on plenty of 3d models and most of the time Rhino did them correctly, whereas Plasticity failed quite often.
As for the “dishonest” part with this particular box example, I have never said that Plasticity is worse than Rhino. Both programs failed on the last fillet, but they did it in a different way:
- Plasticity tried to cheat by generating some fake, distorted corner patch that gives the user a false impression that the job was done fine (unless you look at the patch sideways to expose the ugly truth).
- Rhino is the more precise program of the two and actually created a mathematically correct corner fillet. However, since the corner fillet shared one side with a much smaller existing variable fillet, this caused a self-intersection. In this case, Rhino gave a clear indication about the need to manually fix the area. It didn’t tried to fool the user.
An alternative is to split the self-intersecting corner, as well as the two straight fillets. Then it looks this way, having a crease line due to following a perfect mathematically correct 40 mm radius on all 3 new fillets. Something that’s impossible with the fake patch made by Plasticity.
Here is an alternative solution in Rhino:
Fillet fails in Plasticity, found a solution in Rhino 2.3dm (737.4 KB)
Here is the test model in STEP file format, in case that someone wants to handle this case in Plasticity or another program with “robust filletting”. The goal is to add 30 mm chamfer at 45 degrees and 40 mm radius fillets.
Fillet fails 1.stp (16.4 KB)
I think you are absolutely right on the Rhino chamfer
I see these problems all the time. Where I work we use Cimatron, another poor-quality software, just like SolidWorks and others, which produce terrible fillets. What’s worse is that these programs hide the mess under the hood, and then I’m the one who has to waste twice the time fixing everything before I can even start making a mold.
When I can, I tell the client not to add fillets and to leave sharp edges. It’s the most polite way I have to tell them to just not bother, because those fillets are useless when they’re done like this.
Their so-called genius teams from administration, software sponsors, or fake technical departments either pretend not to know or are certified incompetents, people who have been using wrong mathematics for decades and wasting the time of anyone who actually builds molds or does real engineering.
Last month, luckily, I had the chance to show a designer his models opened in Rhinoceros and all the work I had to do to fix the errors. His reaction was:
“Are my models really this shitty? I’m sorry for the useless work I’ve been making you do. I thought I was giving you good 3D models.”
Here is the same 100 mm box with 40 mm and 35 mm fillets, as well as 30 mm chamfers, that I repeated in Rhino. Using Rhino’s variety of tools makes it possible to achieve what’s not possible in Plasticity in this particular example.
Well you say it is “not possible” to achieve the hand-built fillet in plasticity - so I’m wondering what specific tools plasticity is lacking that make it “not possible” to fix it manually?