Can we also get a persistent lasso/ brush selection mode? If I toggle either of these on, I expect to be using them repeatedly. Preferably, there should also be a mode similar to Autocad with a two click box selection (top left/right - bottom left-right) and click and hold lasso mode with optional window/ crossing left/right direction or overall window/ crossing.
I would like to create curves, surfaces, subd over background geometries (surfaces, subd, meshes) with the possibility of setting up an offset value: f.e. to create a curve over the surface which would be created 3mm over the surface. I love background constraint in Modo where I can set up how big offset should I have during “retopo”. I think it would be also useful in NURBS world.
Wait, IronPython 3 is still far from being somewhat ready…
But man, Python 3 would be great great news!
Imagine, you can get these procedural texturing and shading in GH, you can link Real-time traffic data to from elk and immediately use it as emissive material texture! this will take design visualization to the next level.
Great Ideas Tay. I hope this all makes it in, but not getting my hopes up.
Or is it that McNeel is open to suggestions, which then get put on the infamous infinite “heap” and then never touched for 20 years?
As an Industrial Designer, I wish for new surface and line fillet controllability. Especially doing controllable g3 blends with a chord length input for lines would save me a lot of work. I wrote a script to do such blends but it only works on XY Plane and I can’t change the control point distances before baking.
Also, a link of the control points on both sides would come in handy!
I would love to be able to do nice controlable g3 blends (chord length and distance, maybe radius equialent?!) with a GH component as well!
you can hold shift then drag points, to link the control points on both sides of a blend-
Sketchup is also for theatrical and fashion show set designers and retail shop display designers… and there’s something horribly wrong with that.
Those people go to college to learn to draw and for some reason they all end up using the CAD equivalent of Duplo. Somebody make it stop!
I don’t think so. It’s a great and cheap 3D modelling tool for beginners and amateurs. It was my start into 3D back in high school. If I would have had to start with Rhino, I probably would have given up right away! The ease of use of SketchUp is widely unrivalled up to now. Maybe TinkerCAD can match it in terms of accessibility. Rhino is way too complex, clumsy, and bloated, if you ask me.
I have professionals routinely giving me sketchup files that include complex curves rendered in low poly mesh that forces me to redraw a lot of their work in order to CNC cut it.
They take a vector graphic brand asset and import it to sketchup and want me to carve a 3d relief or letters.
If people are going to be designing things they want built, they should use CAD that allows them to model exactly what they want built.
Disagree. Its very simple to draw a few lines and extrude them. Learning curve is flat.
Still, there’s a lot of stuff that needs a breeze of 21st century.
As a grad student I had the opportunity to introduce Rhino, Maya, and zBrush to some of the incoming students. I found that the students who had used SketchUp in the past were most frustrated with the new software because the “push-pull” methodology that they relied on didn’t translate to other modeling types.
They should be teaching students use the right tool for the job.
Some people are graduating from art, technical, and even engineering schools that don’t understand the difference between a mesh and a CAD model, and when to use one over the other.
Well that’s not really the programs fault, is it. I’d simply charge them extra for their ignorance, after all that’s how the job economy generally works. You know how to do something that somebody else doesn’t and you thus should get paid for whatever service you provide. There are also CNC apps that can generate engraving or cutting toolpath from flat vector files.
Yeah, you say that but I’m not really convinced, being a seasoned CAD and CG all-rounder myself. I’ve helped so many people here over the last few years that I can confidently say that many don’t get that as naturally as pushing and pulling in SketchUp. It’s a stretch to start from a couple of points, to get to a line or curve that then eventually leads to a three-dimensional object.
The learning curve is rather square root-ish, I’d say.
I get that. The push-pull-methodology is really intuitive. Now, with the gumball in Rhino, things are looking up. Extruding and everything related is still a little flimsy, compared to other applications, but I’m optimistic.
That might have been important 5 years ago, but sure is less and less. Also meshes have had a resurrection with the rise of home 3D-printing and CNC-milling.
You probably also mean a mesh versus N.u.r.b.s. geometry, because “CAD” is “Computer Aided Design” not a geometry type.
All this A is great, B is better, person X should not use if Y and Z is nice, but I suggest y’all take that to Meta so in this thread we can go back to moaning exclusively about Rhino and what should be done better now that we devs definitely have been aware of certain issues for decades.
There probably an approved generic term for something that is not a mesh.
There are times where even a Nurbs result is not the best result.
When using some 2D CNC, Nurbs or spline curves should be avoided in favor or arcs
I would like to see improved support for pointclouds from 3D Laser Scanners.
Rhino already does a great job of importing and navigating E.57 pointclouds, but its tool set is a bit limited.
I work as a 3D modeller creating models from pointclouds, mainly for the boat building industry. I have been involved in laser scanning since 2000 and have seen HUGE uptake of the technology recently in architecture, forensics, manufacturing, engineering, surveying and shipbuilding.
Rhino is actually a very good platform for modelling from Pointclouds, but only if the pointclouds are prepared prior to import using something like “Cloudcompare” to apply colour, decimation etc.
It would be great to be able to view pointclouds as colour or intensity at the click of an icon and be able to load a decimated version of the cloud and switch back to a full version at will.
There are Pointcloud Plugins for Rhino, namely Veesus Arena4D for Rhino,(costing more than Rhino itself), but native tools would be great.
In no order…
- A linear texture mapping like GTKRadiant has had for 20 years, so that material’s need not be remapped after resizing an object. More texture/material just slides out, and stays in scale. You want a longer wall? Just resize it, more wallpaper is added. Rhino has some ability for this on a global scale, but not per object.
- Mapping tools that allow x,y copies of a material to be placed on an object. Also a fit option that will fit a material to any rectangle surface, such as fitting a wall-hanging to a frame.
- Natural NURB h/v texture mapping, such as found in GTKRadiant, which allows the simple application of materials on objects such as cable, wires, even while coiled.
- Some work on the block manager, so that larger projects don’t have to be handed off to McNeal’s competitors.
- Perhaps some enhancement to the the walk-through, which allows some kind of rudmentary conclusion detection, which would allow a client to walk through a building before it is constructed.
That would be the surface parameter mapping that already exists and that you don’t have to add.
Here a simple piece of wiring, where I added only a material with a simple texture. I only adjusted the repeat a bit, but no fiddling with texture mapping otherwise. If the surfaces of your object are well behaved you get well behaved surface parameter mapping.
I don’t understand what this means. Are you talking about the repeat of a texture?