Yes, we need these VSR features:
Yes, we need these VSR features:
this is what I would like to see in Rhino (blend, match, but also fillet and shell, offset srf), besides SubD and Grasshopper.
I will repeat it endlessly: these shortcomings are really a shame, because they would make Rhino an excellent cad, complete and powerful for any kind of modeling, even for the most “refined”.
Really great work. I couldn’t do this with Rhino. Nomatter if its “just” under-the-leather-interior and a lot of class A/2 or B areas, it still requires a lot of expertice to come to this point!
I think beyond all this its really not a matter of the tool alone. Its about workflow and the system’s requirements. If you are free to choose, then choose the best suited for you.
Its a pitty that I cannot show my work. Because I mixed a lot Rhino, Catia and Icem Surf. I was working many years in the Exterior design, and was involved in many flagship cars for Volkswagen, Bugatti and Audi.
I think the same problem as @SINYW has. Its really difficult to point out why we still stick to Icem Surf without showing any production data. I’ve said this often, Icem Surf is far from perfect. I mean you cannot undo more then one step. Do I have tell more?
Its just very specialised to class A, and all of its surface and analytic tools work slightly different because of this. So I don’t think Rhino is very close yet. There are so many things to consider its just not bound to its strong matching and analytic tools. Its actually a complete different philosophy, which breaks down to single-span vs multi-span debate. All tools produce quality single span surfaces with little cleaning up required afterwards, which boosts workflow within the class-A world expotentially. Still people need to know how to do things, so its not a guarantee to create awesome models. Also the opposite is true, A skilled Rhino modelling expert can reach class A, Rhino is just not really helping you achiving this. At least without VSR.
The reason people using parametric modelers like Catia for the constructive part, is its parametric nature and its extremly stable surface tools. Its a bit like making a Grasshopper model, and only change the input surfaces (the class A skin) and some curves. Of course this doesn’t work anywhere but it helps. It further can handle enourmous amounts of data, where Rhino is already not responsive anymore. Filleting in Catia is actually fun
What You don’t understand is that Class A modelling automotive surfaces IS a gigantic headache that needs special training and years of experience to completely understand and master.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Rhino gets all the tools needed to compete with ICEM Alias etc.
Do you think that then one could magically surface a complex carbody with perfect transitions in a matter of minutes? There are hourlong videos on youtube contemplating the surfacing of ONE Y shaped surface transition, for chrissakes.
Of course that doesn’t mean that Rhino couldn’t add usability and versatility in these tasks and furthermore the discussed tools for surface analysis and manipulation (all that VSR style stuff) would greatly enhance the workflow for high quality product design surfacing.
So, bring it on McNeel
Having more refined modeling tools at your disposal does not mean modeling easily; as far as I’m concerned, I have no intention of modeling car bodies …
I think McNell, at least for now, has no intention of introducing tools dedicated to the automotive sector; the tools that Rhino currently has are more than enough to carry out 90% of the modeling.
I think someone should develop a plug-in (like xnurbs for the multiblend) that can do as VSR, for Rhino 6 and 7, dedicated tools for modeling style surfaces, class A.
Best blends, matches, curve management and editing, analysis, etc.
I don’t see any other way …
Since this thread is already derailed beyond rescue…
First, car bodies are not the only products that would benefit from more surface tools.
Second, I’d prefer that someone develop robust filleting tools (and drafting) tools so we can get the last 10% as well.
What @Rhino_Bulgaria does more or less manually in Rhino is extremely impressive, but utter insanity. If he’d learned Alias years ago, the sad truth is that he’d be orders of magnitudes faster at his job today (sorry, but I think the multitudes of customers complaining about Rhino’s poor tools are evidence enough of this matter… Rhino is amazing for roughing out surfaces, but those last 10% take ages… in fact, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe @Rhino_Bulgaria is somewhat of a Unicorn!).
Here’s just a novice bumping in, @davide76 CV manipulation in Alias has much more automation than what’s available in Rhino. This makes it easier to not only see the result of the modeling operation in real-time, as opposed to after confirming the operation as done in Rhino. And this is on top of better analysis tools like @TomTom explained.
What I think is huge in terms of workflow is the new, node based, history visualiser in Alias. From my understanding, if a certain modelling command is invoked, a blend surface for instance, it creates a node for the blend surface command. This allows for much quicker iteration and procedural modelling while keeping the advantages of discrete modelling, see:
Note that Dynamo is increasingly incorporated into Alias, which from a marketing perspective probably means: “hey, you don’t have to use Grasshopper anymore.” But I don’t know how advanced Dynamo’s tools are (it does include T-splines ).
With developments like “gradient hatch” and meeting the requirements of non-engineering, non-3d modeling fields, I doubt that will happen in the next two releases. (maybe Rhino9/10)
I’ve been to an Autodesk symposium two years ago. They told to fully make Alias geometry accessable by script and for Dynamo. A fully open api, quite similar to Rhinocommon. Just with better suited surface tools. If they achive this, this really could change things. As far as I remember Dynamo with Alias is not working well. Could have changed recently, don’t know… Alias development is really aggressive. They to some sort trying to kill Icem in class A and Rhino in Generative modelling. Many in the industry I talked to do still believe Icem Surf is just a tick better yet. Same as Rhino with Grasshopper. But all of them admit that this can and already changes throughout the industry… Dassault currently pushes Catia ISD , but this is also high risk route they take. Basically an parametric Icem Surf. Will this work, I don’t know…
No its actually not, actually the price is decoupled from its value nowadays. If you are in a billion dollar buisness, the price tag is not as relevant as for us individuals. The idea is to get the best tool for the job, not the best budget tool. Rhino will still exist, just as Icem will. Its just that most money will be spend on Autodesk products then. Anyway this is not what I’m saying. Its just good news, because it pushes the boundaries even further.
Also note that pricing is mostly a marketing strategy by the marketing department and is not related to the actual pratice of software development. Accounting for all the acquisitions done by Autodesk, all the tech and IP included in these software packages, one cannot judge the real value based on the market price.
That goes without saying that obviously Alias is cathered towards high-end. In a more benevolent world more people and business sectors would have had access to these tools and that’s where the price argument comes into play.
E: Few users capable of using such tools thanks to their training (and low market demand for its special solutions, compared to your average solid modeller) means the price has to be increased for business continuation and correspondingly, the high development costs.
Well kinda, but in the case of “high end” software, the purpose of the high price is to pay for the sales people needed to sell into such enterprises–so it’s marketing driven but it’s a little unfair to say it’s a cynical marketing strategy. McNeel have NO sales staff, it’s all on the resellers and the customers. Suppose it was actually possible to convince some giant car company to actually drop Alias for Rhino instead of random people in the design and production chain buying a seat or two or 50 here and there…would the number of trips and meetings that would take be worth anyone’s time at $995 a seat? Not even close, no.
Agree to disagree, the so called “high end” software also have resellers and partners to whom they do not pay. These resellers have to work hard to sell these overpriced software and are allowed a huge margin of discount (upto 75%). So in fact this “high end” pricy software could be cheaper if you negotiate it properly.
Also the statement that McNeel have not sales people is kinda wrong. I receive regularly emails from Bob and his Daughter or Wife I don’t know, also Jody Mills. (Who’s name reminds me of the show Supernatural that’s why I remember it)
That means 20 times the price for a one year subscription, without any ownership of the software.
They are coming after grashopper’s niche of all the fancy grills and surface patterns…
Any comparison between these two makes no sense at all.
Yeah, I agree.
It just makes sense to illustrate the differences.
Umm but that’s exactly what I’m saying. It costs a ton to sell to enterprises–or at least that’s the traditional model. There’s not enough profit in selling Rhino to even bother to try–in the US market from V1 cut-price resellers made it unprofitable to spend any time trying to sell to anyone, actually.
No, the ton of the money don’t go for marketing as much as it goes for development and subsidiary company acquisitions. (also personal gain of the high-management )
These companies release every year.
Not to mention the support.
(to be clear, I worked as Dassault Systemes consultant for over 2 years in a reseller partner company)