Rhino 6 for Mac is Now Available - and Thank You!

This is wenatchee bug and must have feature for all people collaborating on projects/importing external dwg files - see attachments.
Missing basic Layers sorting feature was originally promised to be fixes in wenatchee (old forum), then in the final OS X release, then in the 5.X release, final 6.0 release and now? Nothing.

At least one may reorder Layers manually…

From my point of view, I’m much more interested in the ability to organize (group) Named Views and Cplanes manually, for the reasons outlined in 2015 here:

TIA, Dan

Edit: and in looking at the YouTrack, and to be fair, I think the scope got distorted unintentially. It is/was “heavy handed” to alphabetize by force (counterproductive) yet the YouTrack resolution missed the utility and point of the ability to manually organize, IMO, such as one may do with Layers. (I do realize an approximation may be accomplished via rename/alphabetize.)

1 Like

Thank you. I understand the bug and why it is painful and I fully agree. I also have investigated the challenges of getting this fixed and it is more difficult that we had anticipated.

@mlecka said:

promised 6 years ago

What I am currently trying to understand is where we promised to fix this. We work hard avoid promising what we don’t know for sure we can deliver (and even then it is dangerous).

But it’s all beside the point. The layer manager in Rhino for Mac is still deficient; there’s no argument there.


Hi - If you ask me, McNeel’s policy has always been very clear on this matter: a feature or version is not ready until it actually is implemented. Release targets for logged items are based on the knowledge that is available at any given time and can, and in most cases will, be (frequently) updated.
-wim

Thanks for digging that up @epiphany. I couldn’t find it in my searches, so I’m glad you did.

Yes, I can understand why that might be interpreted as a promise. It is not a promise. As @wim points out, it is a target. For each Release Target on YouTrack, we spend considerable time and energy figuring out what we can do with our limited resources, prioritizing and reprioritizing issues. Items can and do get shuffled around as we try - and sometimes fail - to delight customers.

If there is a particular YouTrack issue, you can star it and get email updates when it shifts from on release target - or changes state in any way (it’s fairly configurable). So, if there are particular issues that are important to you, you can check in with us if something gets shuffled to the back of the deck (sometimes we can do something about this; sometimes not).

The layer manager, from a development standpoint, not to mention a user’s standpoint, has been a considerable pain.

I’d like to contribute my own 2c worth here. I’m tempted to say that I’m stating the obvious, but in reality the obvious is overlooked.

A lot of users contribute towards the beta testing of new software. We do it because we want to be part of something as well as getting to play with a new toy. We don’t ask to be paid and it seems a bit insincere to later ask why we haven’t been rewarded.

Secondly, we have purchased an inhibited product at a reduced price. All seems fair. That does not oblige McNeel to provide us with future products at a similarly reduced price. As mentioned in the thread, upgrading is an option and we are no worse off than we were a week or a year ago if we don’t upgrade. We have now been given an opportunity to pay some money if it brings us increased value.

In the interest of disclosure, I have no link to McNeel. I was a lazy tester, benefiting from playing around with new features without contributing to the product (my intentions were to figure out what the new version can offer).

I don’t know whether I will purchase v6 as I am a hobbyist who just likes doing 3D design out of interest, and probably won’t be upgrading as I can’t justify it.

But I do think that we (as users) have been offered the possibility to purchase a new Mac version of Rhino. That isn’t something we should take for granted. And we certainly shouldn’t start demanding special privileges.

My apologies if I have any of my facts wrong. But I feel it does no good to approach life with an attitude of entitlement.

I totally agree with everything you’ve said. However, the precedent is that new releases have a discount period shortly after release.

The argument on the earlier thread was that because the V6 windows upgrade would also work for Mac, we Mac users should have bought that 18 months ago if we wanted a discounted version.

The reality of it is that V6 on windows will have an 18month or so longer life span and it will have cost less.

Of course, McNeel can do whatever the hell they like. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with or like it, or even continue being a paying customer. That’s the way it rolls; I’m fully aware of that.

I am, however, of the opinion that it is far better to communicate displeasure than to silently accept it. The latter gives those in decision making positions no opportunity to make adjustments.

I did participate in the beta programme in good faith and, as you say, out of curiosity. I’m also aware that certain features of V6 have been useful over the months and I got access to those for free. There are also a number of bugs that I’ve spotted and reported. I guess what I was getting at is that those who have contributed towards a product then feeling let down isn’t a great thing for a company.

I happen to think that V6 for Mac isn’t ready. There are just too many glitches and performance issues outstanding. Maybe it will be another few months before it is, eating up yet more time before V7 arrives.

I would appreciate an update on the V7 development programme? Are we looking at 2020 for it? I mean, if V6 is only current for 12 months or so it’s really not looking like a good decision to upgrade.

As an aside, my point about having files ‘stranded’ in V6 format could get pretty annoying as a consequence of helping with the V6 beta. I guess I could go through and try to find all files that are in V6 and save them back to V5. I’m sure I’ll miss some though which will be really quite irritating.

I have to concede that point. It is better for a restaurant that a customer say the steak was tough than for them to say everything was perfect before leaving, never to return.

2 Likes

i certainly agree, i often leave an extra suggestion behind when i pay, something which seems important at least to me, even when i love it already very much, there is always room for improvement. people never should take criticism from bottom up. actually its a compliment, because it shows love and compassion towards the product and the people producing it.

unfortunately, and that seriously is very unfortunate that some people dont care if the steak was tough and will proceed delivering tough steaks until they finally have either found inspiration to change it or somebody, something kicks them out of their business.

No, the main argument is that they would have to offer the same discount to all Windows users again - as a V6 upgrade license is a V6 upgrade license - no matter what the platform. It’s one single product.

Not just Beta software. Note we are in release 17 of V6 - users (mostly Windows) have been using/testing paid software and reporting bugs which are corrected as quickly as possible (if possible). If you look at some of the posters in here you will see they spend extensive amounts of time testing, documenting and posting issues - without asking to get compensated. And as the core code of V6 is the same on both platforms, when a bug is fixed, it is generally fixed for both, so Mac V6 users have benefited not only from their V6 Beta testing, but also from more than a year of Windows users release version testing and reporting (not to mention 5 years of Windows WIP/Beta before that).

The same comments were made when V6 was released for Windows. Some people say it’s still not ready. (that after 6 years development). It’s never ready.

Considering past history, it’s unlikely. But, the decision to upgrade is always optional.

Yep, Windows Rhino users were in a similar situation. Par for the course - past versions can not open new version’s files since V2 or so, so if you beta test and don’t upgrade right away, you do need to check your critical files. That being said, there are many people in here who would happily open a stuck V6 file for you and re-save it back to V5 if you need.

I’m aware of both arguments but the one I mentioned was most definitely made. And it was a point made by you.

The logic that the end product is the same, therefore the upgrade path and cost must be the same is, I’m afraid, nonsense. Many software providers charge different amounts to go from different versions to the current one. The upgrade is validated against the existing licence key.

I’ve kind of explained this further up this thread, but we are talking A->C and B->C upgrades. They have different starting points so a different route can be provided if McNeel wanted to.

They clearly don’t.

I’m aware of that and I’ve said as much.

I tend to take the view that if a customer is unhappy, it is better for them to communicate that. It at least gives the supplier an opportunity to rectify things if they choose to. To just stay silent does no one any favours.

That is unfortunately not the way the McNeel system works (and you know that as well). An upgrade is valid from any previous version of Rhino - has always been that way.

This is what my McNeel reseller store listing looks like

image

No differentiation.

In order to differentiate between Mac Rhino and Windows Rhino upgrades (in order to offer differential pricing), there would have to be two different products. There are not.

It is a choice that is made by McNeel. That is my point. Of course they could have a system that could provide a different price if you enter one serial number vs another. They have chosen not to do that.

No serial numbers to enter. I just stock products. I as a reseller do not ask for anything from the buyer concerning previous licenses - it is up to the buyer to choose which version. At the time of validation (after installing) the license is checked for validity and if it is an upgrade version it wants to see the previous license - but this does not happen during the sales process.

Ugh, this is becoming a ‘computer says no’ discussion.

Of course you don’t do all these things currently. It could be dealt with in a variety of ways. For example it could be confirmed that you’ve bought the right version during validation. It could be done during the selling of it.

Just because someone has chosen to set up a system one way, doesn’t mean it is immune from criticism.

Of course not. They could have done a lot of things. We could have had dongles. We could have had incremental upgrades from one version to the next (à la RhinoCAM) so that essentially you have to pay for skipping a version whether you used it or not. We could have had rental software… The list goes on and on.

The fact is that McNeel has chosen their licensing policy based on their analysis of what’s best for them as well as the majority of their users. It’s actually one of the most customer-oriented policies that exist. There will however always be some that are unhappy with the system. You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

1 Like

Of course. All I’m doing is explaining that I think it is flawed in this one scenario.

Edit: I should add I am in no way advocating any changes other than a check against whether you have a Mac V5 licence or not. By the sounds of it, this is a one off as future releases will be simultaneous or very close to being so.

Totally true. That’s what I like Rhino for when talking about licenses in general.

1 Like

Totally irrelevant to the topic, but I just love coming across discussions on the web where people speak “correct” (i.e. UK) English. :sunglasses:

It’s actually one of the things I most appreciate about Grasshopper. :star_struck:

1 Like