Yes, SpaceMouse support was introduced in version 2 (and in the betas before)
1 Like
Iām looking into updating it to 1.4+, but itās a huge pain so farā¦
I guess āartistsā like using git.hub to update software 
woohoo! i got it I think lol:
3D mousey not working,ā¦ guess Iāll reboot or something gahhhā¦ CADās sometimes I swearā¦
I donāt see where thereād be any setting thatās off:
Ok Iām going back to playing with the V9 wip. Iām done with plastic city again 
ā¦
Ok so I finally got the spacemouse to work in plastic city. I had to install version 24.1+
But now Iām witnessing the vertical tilt is locked 
Going to play with v9 wip instead 
bbl
I spent some time yesterday working with Plasticity and it is nice. It is targeted to Blender users as many of the key commands are the same. If you are someone who needs to get mesh data into Blender then Plasticity seems like a good buy. It outputs cleaner meshes than Rhino. I may buy a version for that purpose. But the way Rhino integrates into all the other software that I use, it wonāt be replacing Rhino for me. The bigger question is the Studio version worth twice the price to import/export Rhino files and use Xnurbs. Or is it fine as a hard modeling tool for Blender? Iām still on the fence.
We donāt see Plasticity as a replacement for Rhino, or Blender in any way.
But we do see Plasticity as a replacement of the filter tool in Rhino. Plasticity is now our filler tool. Also used for some direct modeling but it all falls apart quickly if you have anything more complex than prismatic shapes.
Iād love to see a live-link between Plasticity<>Rhino just for this. Hopefully after @nathanletwory ships the Blender live-link he can focus on the Plasticity one? 
G
6 Likes
no pressure.
4 Likes
Take your time Nathan, donāt let anyone, not even myself, distract you from strategic priority # 1: Rhino-Inside Blender.
8 Likes
Hahaha! For V0.x of Rhino-Inside I think a SubD Rhino that preserves edge weights and UV information between Rhino <> Blender will do.
After V1.0 we should start seeing a live-link between SubD objects in Rhino <> Blender, while also inside Rhino itself having a live-link between SubD objects and their ToNurbs conversions, with Boolean history of course.
Nathan, please let me know if youāll need more development support for this. Iāll talk to them.
G
There might be a Blender bridge? That would be fantastic! Speckle is not good enough. The data has to be relayed by their server.
@nathanletwory, please consider this, many Rhino users have already embraced Blender.
3 Likes
i think plasticity is an amazing reference to see, how a complex technology (parasolid, xnurbs and maybe more run in the background) can be broken down to simple and convincing interface / UI.
there is not this mentality of āold macros might no longer workā or āmuscle memory of existing users will hate itā.
3 Likes
This is a difficult problem. Plasticity is declared as an artistic program, and has the benefit of a honeymoon period where nobody is dependent on workflow.
You are effectively more likely to be working with people who either have other software, or donāt have a vested interest in the workflow mechanics.
I bet you that the discord has already a few disgruntled users who were there from the start, and have been dragged along to make progress.
Itās also probably lot easier to focus on the importance of UI and workflow as a business, when someone else did the most important math in the Parasolid kernal long ago.
But it is refreshing to see a slightly more iterative approach, rather than āno, the filleting kernel must be left alone for 25 years, incase someone gets upsetā. Or itās like one of those ātraditionā scripts that nobody employed at McNeel understands anymore, so nobody dares to touch it.
The UI does look very nice and clean, and there are no clown panels. They can even change material preview without āPlasticity (Not responding)ā. 
FYI, this for example, came up immediately in YouTube, and all I searched was āPlasticity 3Dā. However, I note that sectioning is also existing in 2025.1.
The filleting option to create a Y blend in 2025.1 looks fabulous! Imagine how many problems would be solved if Rhino would even bother to resolve this filleting case in any way by itself.
1 Like
I donāt want to be antagonistic, but I really donāt get the criticism implied in the subtext of this statement.
THIS is the outstanding value proposition of plasticity:
You get a world class CAD kernel, plus XNurbs plus more and more quality surfacing tools (okay, this will be more truthful in the near future) plus a very nice and streamlined UI for litteraly a few bucks/Euros.
Who cares if this is āeasierā for the developer?
What would you gain from a more difficult āall developed in houseā approach?
1 Like
Criticism was not my intent.
I think not re-inventing the wheel is probably a good thing in the context of this software. It depends entirely on the risk; and the (unlikely) risk here is that Parasolid license is abruptly withdrawn for no reason.
But in the context of the business, with a team the size of McNeel, they are fighting many fires on many fronts (okay, some self-inflicted).
However, Plasticity for the core engine broadly defers its surfacing functionality to a third party (please correct if I am wrong). All I meant was that, as a business, itās probably more efficient and acceptable to break stuff when the person handling OpenGL isnāt having an open fight in the office with the person responsible for surface trimming, because the surface trimming is absolutely fine anyway.
I really like the UI of Plasticity. I think if someone at McNeel ever fixed the filleting and blending capability, I would love to try a properly UI-reduced or re-skinned version of Rhino. Sometimes I do struggle to concept designs when I am stuck with a command line only workflow.
My concern with any software is that my ownership or use of the software goes away because a random third party decides to go all maximum Autodesk on the kernel.
It is also encouraging that there are seemingly very little in the way of ābugs that become featuresā.
I get that.
But as a customer: why should I care?
I see Plasticity foremost as the most accesible (in terms of cost) way to get hold of Parasolidss and xNurbs.
Who knows what the future holds? I will get angry about it when it happens.
In the meantime I enjoy the fact that software like Plasticity manages to knock down the cost associated with the technology they use.
Again I am not trying to pick a fight, you are of course 100 % entitled to your opinion.
I am just baffled that you seem to be so wary of the very thing that to me personally is Plasticityās main selling point.
2 Likes
Software ownership and licensing are reasonably sensitive topics for me. Unfortunately, it is just how I am.
I always am very wary of chains of co-dependent software licenses. But yes, it remains an entirely personal thing.
But Plasticity does also sell on the ownership front, so it seems very reasonable.
1 Like
Who is owner? Developer?
Of course you are right about being concerned about ownership.
I know I have been burnt too many times on that issue.
And of course I very much hope that Plasticity will remain āindependentā and at the same time be able too offer the third party technology at this price model and level.
But I sincerely feel that the current offer is too good to pass on, even if it will go away or change in the future.
1 Like