This is pretty much how NURBS polysurfaces already work. Notice here that if I boolaen difference cylinders out of a box, explode, and turn on control points, you’ll see that the geometry of the cylinders is still there. I can bring back the cylinders by running one of the untrim commands. Or, If I run ShrinkTrimmedSrf, Rhino will rebuild those cylinders to be only what is needed to make the trimmed surface.
Advanced clipping with object exclusion–like the current clipping planes–should work with anything and everything in your scene: Point objects, Curves, Surfaces, PolySurfaces, SubDs, and Meshes. It should work with Make2D and and Layouts.
Boolean with history is a valid but separate conversation.
I understand this problem and am constantly troubleshooting it. If the goal is purely visualization, I will apply the perf pattern as a texture with transparency to an untrimmed surface and it works great for rendering. If you are generating drawings for documentation, it game becomes ‘how to trim the fat’ or how to get rid of extra geometry that isn’t needed for the drawings. Take my example above - each of those plates are made up of 15 trimmed surfaces and 69 edges. I will often do away with showing material thicknesses with perf panel drawings by just using single surfaces. This makes my plates above 1 trimmed surface with 13 edges and really shaves down the file size. _SelVisible is also very helpful when getting rid of objects that aren’t being seen in a drawing. I know this isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution but my point is that I suspect negative shapes aren’t going to help you.
I really would like, Parametric Blocks,
A gh def could be embeed inside as a block.
As grasshopper display panel, a block could have his own accessible parameters…
So multiple block based on the same definition could be displayed on the same rhino file according their own parameters…
And it will be dynamic, for variations…
A wish but I am sure this could find many application, for users which are manipulating products with “variations”, In my case, interior design purpose
Boolean history does some of what I’m asking and would be useful, but in the case of objects that aren’t cylinders, there’s a lot that I can do with negative shapes than with boolean history. For instance, I can edit the shape of the negative object in any way I’d want to and it would still be a negative shape. And instead of ‘losing’ history or having Rhino misinterpret my history wishes, my ‘negative’ shape is always negative until I tell it not to be.
My goal is almost never visualization, so textures aren’t going to cut it. And I almost never produce drawings, so clipping objects aren’t very useful to me either. But negative volumes would be amazing. If I can’t get those, then boolean history might be useful.
The global matching analysis which works on multiple edges at same time - similar to old Autodesk Shape Modeling plugin. For now, in v7 is only possible to see one pair at a time. What is very slow when you need to compare many connections on the complex object.
The second thing is fillet which works as in old 123D design:
I know that fillet is not perfect but I mean that you can push it above conflict without limit. Other thing is in Rhino I can`t do fillet like this as one go at all (even without that limitless option).
wish:
explorer details tab populate with file saved & program version, notes etc
avoid “this file was saved with more recent rhino version”
also have the opportunity to “accept the risk” of opening the file
My list :
1-Continuing to update and clean the user interface .
2-Development of current tools, especially in surfaces modification.
3-Make Rhino 2021-2022…Every year a new release like the rest of the programs.
Thanks.
NO. My understanding is that McNeel releases a new official version of Rhino “when it’s ready,” instead of every year with needless superficial updates like other software companies do (and treat their costumers like hostages in the process.)
Owners of a license for the current release have access to the least WIP at no additional cost. This is my personal favorite part of being a Rhino user.
Many of the ones Im thinking of have been mentioned already. One I havent seen is Falloffs. Its a feature I use in modo that works with points, edges and faces (polygons ) and would be a welcome feature for both Nurbs and Sub D components in Rhino. See the link below for an example of what Falloffs are .
Definitely not. Being different from ‘the rest of the programs’ is what makes Rhino the marvel that it is. Selling yearly upgrades that have few new features as others do would be a sure-fire way to lose customer confidence.
yes but only via grasshopper. 