Push Pull, Forever Again


I have always wondered why cant we have handy push pull capabilities that would basically save you hours of modelling.
At first i thought this is an exclusive feature of mesh modelling programs but then in recent years i see more nurbs programs and apps that have this amazing feature Shapr3D and Umake are just the first that come to my mind.

So again, why there isnt such thing in Rhino? I am not talking about workarounds, SubD and Gumball functoons, you know pretty well is not the same thing. I am talking about a simple and fast function to draw custom curves on faces and extrude them inward or outward. I know there are ways to do it but it just too cumbersome. As far as i know from Rhino 5 even to change the Cplane is not working fast and easy. Rhino needs a fast Cplane by face autodetection, without even typing the commands.

Is the core engine of Rhino not compatible with a real and efficiewnt push pull function?

1 Like

Yes, looooong time waiting! Like this:
And this:
And this:

Yes, exactly! After reading further more i found out that these programs are solid modelling based, some of them using Parasolid engine.
Doesnt Rhino have a good solid modelling engine? Cant it get improved or even better integrate PARASOLID into it?

Modelling solid easy and intuitive is essential in architectural design, especiallly in early concept massing stages

InterpCrvOnSrf command and free CurveOnSurface plugin draw curves on any surface (flat or curved). The plugin is more accurate and it has CurveOnSurfacePtOn command which turns on control points of the curve.

Once you have drawn the curve, you split the surface with the curve. Than you use Gumball to manipulate it. (Gumball can do much more that push and pull.) Finally, you use Join command to join the surfaces.

In Rhino 6 you can use CPlane command with Surface option, and you can select the surface using Ctrl+Shift.


You can do the same things in Rhino 6. Read documentation and watch free video tutorials before criticizing Rhino. Best free video tutorials are posted on two websites:
Vimeo (Robert McNeel & Associates): http://vimeo.com/rhino/videos
YouTube (Simply Rhino): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRBjWaXSeqTP89FWVv26QxA/videos

1 Like

Which comes with significant license fees and I highly doubt McNeel will ever do that.

Not as easy and robust as those programs based on parasolid kernel. Rhino won’t merge concentric cylinders of same radius, extruding a planar shape up to a surface won’t auto merge. Extruding a cavity up to a surface leads to issues using solid edit tools. Moving points in solidpton mode often completely destroys planar surface if the faces end in a filleted edge. Etc. Etc.


No, I cant with the same ease! Watch the videos again before commenting - and better of try using BricsCAD to make the difference. I’m using both Rhino and BricsCAD every day.

Which comes with significant license fees and I highly doubt McNeel will ever do that.

I dont know how significant would affect the license fees but i think this should be addressed or officialy talked about, if it hasn`t been discussed yet.
Why not offer it as an add-on or separate version?

Because you can’t just plock in a new core and expect it to work with 3 clicks. The core is one thing, there is the whole UI that would have to be hooked up and integrated with the existing interface and core. That’s a lot of development.

There was a solid core add-on offered by IntegrityWare a long time back. It bombed. There were also a couple of plugins to make Rhino more parametric and solid modeler-like… Also gone, just not enough sales to justify their economic existence.

Rhino is a surface modeler. That is the reality of the situation, with all its advantages and drawbacks. And while within that framework I think some of what you want could be integrated - especially if you restrict your modeling to planar faces - it just does not look like that is the way development is headed.

If you look closely at where RhinoInside is going, it’s basically this:

“OK, we realize that Rhino does not respond optimally to certain CAD needs, so you can continue to use XYZ CAD as your main modeler and call up Rhino from inside that when you need…”


You might be right, Rhino is mainly used for Grasshopper and for the parametric surfaces and less for direct modelling of building masses. Anyway those who do use it for direct modelling have a hard time doing it.
But i think its always healthy to look for improvements. Maybe i am idealist, i always look for the ideal all-in-one solution which might never come. But you have to agree there are also marketing reasons behind this, and its not a problem of technology.

Everything you said in this short paragraph is false.


What exactly is false? That you need to type at least 1 command every second while someone using Sketchup or whatever solid modeler has already finished the massing?
I am not arguing about Rhino value and capabilities in general. I am talking about a specific technique vs efficiency.

@constantinecozma maybe what you want is possible in a different way. Rhino’s power is just different from a direct (parasoled) modeler, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you can accomplish the task at hand faster in those modelers. It depends on what needs to be done and how you do it. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of making the right aliases / macros, sometimes a little script here and there. Can you give examples of the type of designs you build in Rhino?


Usually i am referring to solid-void type of designs, or at the early stages when i want to study some facade ideeas and i need to cut and/or split an extrusion to change the material or to do some sculpting. I am talking about polygonal volumes.
I worked on some projects like that and i remember it was very frustrating trying to draw on face and split them. This can be done in seconds in other softwares
Here is a link just as a reference for these types of designs

If you do not require precision and/or curved surfaces, I’d say something like SketchUp is your friend here - not that Rhino could not do a better job, but a polygon based thing is going to do it much more easily and naturally. It would take a massive departure from how Rhino deals with breps and surfaces and solids to make a really clean interaction possible.



Too many of these lazy buildings that are ‘so easy’ on the right CAD system. Design something difficult- it’s often appreciated by the end-users…