[Request] Add information to Package Manager

I stumbled upon this plugin

Nowhere in its description in PackageManager does it say it is in fact a commercial release and requires a 3rd-party License purchase in order to be installed.

I do not know if it’s just overlooking on McNeel side that they didn’t expect people trying to exploit the easy distribution tool, or an mistake by the developer not enclosing this important fact or perhaps a deliberate act by the developer to boost their download count.

Whichever it is there is a problem.

I usually download plugins to test and see if I could find even one or two single components or commands that could fit my workflow. I bet many do that but this practice to install plugins filling my PC system folders and registry with garbage residue just to uninstall them (leaving some of the garbage residue inside) without even being able to test the software I find unacceptable and unethical.


Hi Ivelin -
I agree that this is problematic.
The 3rd party developer should, of course, include highly relevant information such as price.
We have an item on our list (RH-59957 - not visible to the public) to look into that type of issues and this specific case was added to that report.
In the meanwhile, you might want to stick to Food4Rhino if you really want to avoid running into this.

1 Like

Hi @wim ,
Can PackageManager looks like Food4Rhino?

Can PackageManager show a popoup when a new version of packages I have istalled are available?

1 Like

Hi Enzo -

Probably not. Embedding a browser in the PackageManager dialog to display the Food4Rhino page is probably not on the agenda. Making sure that key fields (License, Platform, etc.) are available in the dialog, on the other hand, is. I’ve added your comment and mockup to item RH-59957 (not visible to the public).

We have item YAK-25 (not visible to the public) on the list to figure out how to do this. I’ve added your comment.

1 Like

excuse me bumping old post, but can you include a sort function? Now it list the plugins by alphabetical order only. I think sort by latest release or update is a nice start. thx wim

1 Like

Hey Chris -

Are you thinking of the “Online” list or the “Installed” list, or both?

For Installed, I see use for sort by latest update available (default), and or alphabetical and as secondary option. Now in order to check, i need to scroll down first

For Online, i would say sort by latest update (data published) as default, and then alphabetical. This way you can more easily stumble on new plugins (if visiting food4rhino isn’t ones first search location)

But this is how i think it would suite me more

@crz_06 for the time being you can use: https://rhinopackages.com/
It has more filter, sort and search options and can open the packages in Rhino.

1 Like