Have you tried the TestWireThicknessScale command in V6 that Mitch pointed out?
Hi Steve, I tried it now and also tried to match it with V5 default. The scale was 0.7. It look like this in V5 and V6.
and is this good? I canât really tell the difference by looking at the screenshots
Yup, they match to V5 in thickness now with AA effect on it, making it better than V5. Thanks!
I like the V6 curve display!
Far better than V5, especially on highres screens.
Charles
Iâm guessing everyoneâs screen is going to look just a little different and everyoneâs tastes are definitely different. My plan is to expose the TestWireScaleThickness as an application setting so userâs can fine tune for their setup and taste.
it might depend on the card, on my system and with 8xAA 0.6 gives the appearance of having micro gaps in the curved lines, so both 0.65 and 0.7 is a tad prettier.
@Holo i triead on quadro m4000m, gtx1080ti and quadro k5000 all of them are saying: âwe need 0.6â but at the end of the day 0.65 will be way better than it is now
Here in GTX 780M (laptop) - AA x8 (nvidia control panel
On screen Rhino 5 looks better that Rhino 6⌠But with â-viewcapturetofileâ 1920x1080 scale 1, Rhino 6 final result looks better.
Unfortunately reducing the wire thickness via TestWireThicknessScale is not an option for me here, as it also acts on curves. The result is - say at a value of 0.6 - that curve colors become very dull against a dark background. As we laser cut via color using pure red, green, blue, cyan and magenta, by eye I can often tell when student supplied files do not have the correct color. With the wire scale at 0.6, I can no longer do that, and have to physically check everything.
I donât know if you can actually see the difference in the screenshots below, but itâs fairly obvious here on the screen (especially with red and green):
V5:
V6 with wire scale set to 0.6:
Having to reduce the edge thickness to compensate for the poorer AA between V5 and V6 is just not a happy solution IMO.
âMitch
Yes, exactly my thoughtsâŚ
Furthermore I do not want to be forced do use considerable amounts of gpu/cpu power for AA,
having to deal with large scenes on a daily basisâŚ
Best
Andreas
Are you laser cutting things like your smaple using raster output? This test command setting has no effect on vector output.
Yes, it has nothing to do with the actual cutting, only to do with what I see on the screen - as I said, itâs much easier to read the lines/colors when wire thickness scaling is disabled.
âMitch
Some, and me too, disable AA at all for âdebuggingâ.
Without AA, one can see immediately if a line is really straight along X or Y.
At least in most cases.
With the new line thickness in V6 this is no longer possible.
Depending on the zoom, a line is 1 or 2 px wide.
We really need an option to disable the auto-thickness.
On a file someone posted here this morning - note the awful AA in V6 and it is set to 8x.
(it actually looks way worse on the screen than it does in the screenshot)
Here is V5:
I donât know, but I constantly have the feeling that with these AA comparisons the images are switched in the text. The V5 shows horrible jagged lines where you say the AA is better⌠this is even more pronounces when seeing the scaled version on the phone.
FWIW, same here - I always think that what gets posted here as RH6 looks better than their RH5 equivalents. It confuses the heck out of me. ø) - That and screenshots apparently not actually grasping what is seen on screen⌠Must be some DPI scaling?
The AA in V6 is better imo.
Look at such situations in V5:
Also the thicker lines are better for my taste.
Much better.
But again, there should be a setting to switch to the V5 line thickness mode.