Rhino 8 for Architects

You might want to have a look at this:

AntFarm - data management for Rhino and GH - Pre-Release out now - News - McNeel Forum


1 Like

Does anyone have a good tutorial tip for advanced texturing in Rhino 7? I am still struggling a bit in understanding how this is supposed to work, besides using it for a long time.


I’ve never gotten to fully understand textures either, its like a mysterious world :upside_down_face:

1 Like

Start a new thread with this question and it is more likely to be answered. Click on “+ New Topic” which is above the top right corner of the list of threads.

This thread is about Rhino 8 for Architects which is unrelated.

Well, I do think it is related. I use Rhino for architecture & design and hope that in Rhino 8 the handling of textures gets a little simpler and more intuitive. Now it is very confusing.

Although this does not answer an improvement in Rhino, but we have a plugin that allows Rhino, Grasshopper and Rhino.Inside.Revit to work with BIM360. It is one way to have a central set of files: Using BIM360 with Rhino and Grasshopper files

Hopefully avoiding turning this thread into another Wishlist thread.

You can imagine all the features in the world to help your work in architecture. I’d like to focus on the tools necessary for every architectural drawing set in the world. I’ve been doing permit sets and construction document sets for 16 years and below are the most significant components of every architectural drawing set, whether done in BIM, 2D CAD or hand drafting.

1- Titleblock with Revision Schedule
2- Schedules (Drawing List, Door Schedule, Wall Schedule, Finish Schedule, Keynote Schedule)
3- Legends (Sheet Notes, General Symbols, Plan Symbols, Finish Symbols, Hatch Symbols…etc).

1 Like

I’ve been thinking about what’s actually holding back Rhino from really becoming a one-stop architectural tool. I hate the idea of having to spend $1,000’s per year on a subscription to a program just to annotate plans. Rhino (and Visual ARQ) is so close to achieving that.

I think people are right in saying that the program shouldn’t become bloated with features and in effect, increasing it’s cost for all users regardless of whether they use those features or not. This is essentially the penalty we pay for using any of the big-names software. It’s frustrating as an AutoCAD user because it’s even worse: We essentially pay for the development of Autodesk’s other software (because we certainly don’t see $2,000 per year worth of improvements to AutoCAD).

I’m of the opinion that plug-ins are the way to go. That way, the person modelling a desk lamp or sun glasses doesn’t need to pay for our architectural tools. Better annotation tools may or may not be suitable as a plug-in but architectural tools definitely.

Visual ARQ is pretty capable but it’s really un-tapped/un-tested. Barely anyone uses the features but there’s perhaps good reasons for this. There’s almost no content available. And it takes a lot of time and digging to find what settings affect what. I’ve finally found some time to explore the program and it’s styles in a bit more depth and have had mixed success. One key factor to Revit’s success has been it’s user group. Maybe we could do the same? Personally, I think that Rhino/VARQ is superior to Sketchup + any plugin, yet we see way more work produced with the later combo(s). We’re lucky to have a very proactive development team so I think sharing more, experimenting more, and seeing what the program can actually do will go a long ways. Over the winter I intent to build a fully-annotated “test” project of some kind just to see where everything’s at, what I actually need, and what I can work with.

I figured I might as well post some pictures of what I’m experimenting with to add some color to this topic. A common theme for users is to end up with promising results but only to have certain things not quite turn out right (for example, the window/air gaps and some unwanted lines showing up). This is my second go around exploring Visual ARQ styles. I’m approaching it with a different mentality, that is, rather than get things the way I want I’m trying to see how close I can get to what I want within the confines of what the program can do.

Experiments with wall styles; need to work out some kinks but these look pretty good I think:

Stair Styles:

Messing around with vaPlanView (two styles stacked on top of one another):


2- Schedules…

Rhino can “kind of” do schedules. But it’s not straight forward it looks like a lot of work. To be honest I was having a little trouble following this video, but the potential exists:

I feel like there’s a disconnect where a feature that should be available isn’t, and instead you have to mess around with Grasshopper for hours. Some of the grasshopper definitions should just be included I think. Either as part of the program or have the definitions built and ready to go.

VA cant even do window reveals like in your screenshot properly. They have a long way to go to be useful beyond basic design.

So far, I’ve figured out a couple ways to make it look better. But so far I haven’t found a way to have both an “interior” reveal and an “exterior” reveal. I’ve already progressed beyond the picture above.

There are workarounds but they suck. Generally, if I want something to look perfect I have to freeform it. I can freeform stuff faster than many can model (correctly) in Revit but still… so many things are so close to working 100%… but aren’t…

I think one key thing going forward will be to fix all the little quirks and shortcomings and not spend time on features 95% of users will never touch.

This is fairly easy to do with GH and should not take more than 20 minutes to set up.

Once you have your template definition you can use it evertine again and even turn it into a command.

I think you should stop seeing GH as this foreign, complex world that is unncesary to dwell in. On the contrary, Grashopper is the key to automatization, efficiency and live updating inside Rhino.

It is not a plug in, it is Rhino. If it is possible with GH then the feature is aleady available. Better learn Rhino (and yes that includes GH).

Can you whip it up and show us then :wink:

In reality it’s not a 20 minute task. First you have to know how to use Grasshopper. I finally getting into it but the interface is awkward as #$%! at first. For example, the delete key (on the keyboard) doesn’t even work; not a biggie but takes getting used to it (but once you do the interface is quite nice). The big problem however is that a lot of users simply don’t have time to get used to it, and it’s quite unintuitive at first. I think I spent 20 minutes just to find these little buttons to add parameters to my C# plugin:

The tutorials/support/help is there but it’s not all in one place; you have to search a little bit for it. This again makes it hard for people short on time/energy.

I don’t know how you got that from my post. I definitely see the usefulness in Grasshopper. But what I’m speaking about is features and functions missing from the program out-of-the-box (schedules for example). In a previous post I mentioned that the dynamic elevation mark should be included and users shouldn’t have to build their own component. Not a big deal? It more or less pushed me into taking a 3 month hiatus from Rhino; I simply had to do all my work in AutoCAD until I could teach myself how to implement an elevation mark that displays architectural feet and inches (which takes all but 2 minutes to create in AutoCAD).

The above isn’t as bad as it sounds; I like building my own stuff and absolutely don’t mind being “stuck” in AutoCAD while I put things together. My point here is that requiring each and every user to have at least a novice ability level in Grasshopper might deter a lot of future users. You shouldn’t HAVE to learn grasshopper just to insert an annotation that is otherwise a basic out-of-the-box feature in most other programs.

That’s exactly my point. You also need to know ACAD for that matter…

Its like saying in order to create a 3D model you need to learn Rhino and you don’t have time for it.

Dynamic elevation mark as a text displaying height of point? I think that’s one minute in Grasshopper.

Is it though? I don’t remember seeing it in 3dsmax, or Cinema4D, or Maya, or Blender…

3D modelling and programming are really different skills. They compliment one another, but they aren’t the same thing.

It isn’t. I also don’t think you read what I actually described. If it is then make one that display’s architectural feet-inches. It’s easy to make one that displays decimal feet but doesn’t have any other real functionality (doesn’t even rotate, etc…). I’ve figured out how to do it (I think… we’ll see when I have another free weekend) but it wasn’t easy. I needed to learn Grasshopper and C#.

Blender is free and is hardly used for Architecture (although there is potential). The other programs you mentioned are used for entirely different purposes. 3D Studio Max for rederings/visuals sure, but not annotating. Cinema4D!!!, and Maya? These are 3D animation programs… I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, it’s almost like you’ve confused this with an entirely different topic.

Irrelevant, the point is you need to learn before achieving x. Modelling, programming, drafting, etc. Also Grasshopper is not actually programming.

I believe you didn’t describe anything detailed on this thread. In any case, it shouldn’t really be that complex, after all it is just a 2D symbol.

I am pretty sure that if you ask in the GH forum you will have plenty of help with what you need. Most things are already done:

Nope, those are 3D modelling programs. Rhino is much closer to those than to drafting/BIM software.

Actually this is completely relevant. You have no basis for saying it’s not.

The GH forum is very helpful for sure. But it also means that your “2 minute solution” is in fact not a 2 minute solution. You looked up an old forum post instead of creating a solution yourself. You’ve successful found A PIECE of the solution but it has taken you more time than you originally claimed it would take you to create it yourself (and I already mentioned I created a similar part in C#). Now… feel free to spend more of your time (you’ve exceeded your limit, we should’ve bet!!), but remember, I only brought up this point to demonstrate how much effort is involved to include a simple annotation element.

You’re also skimming posts…

Okay you got me, you can 3D model with them. But we are talking about Architecture, and to that extent, annotations. Neither program would even be a first choice for an architectural visualization. You’d be spending extra money on something less suited to that specific task. They are most commonly used by… ugh… animators…

But, since you’re filled to the brim with confidence why don’t you use Cinema 4D or Maya to produce a set of architectural plans for us? Make all your dimension styles in Maya, all that good stuff. See what you can come up with? I’m dying of curiosity here.

I do, and its what followed my claim…

Right here…

Also, saying ‘it is’ relevant without not actually stating why is not an argument. I did say why it wasn’t relevant…

Searching that solution took me 10 seconds literally.

How so? 92 posts here, didn;t read the whole thread, tried to find your post in here and I didn’t find any references to your request for dynamic elevation marks. Sorry if I have missed it, quoting it would help.

Wrong. 3ds max is the number 1 for architecture visualization, industry standard. Cinema4D with both Vray and Corona support is right there in top 3 as well.

I don’t see where you are going with this. In any case, my point stands, asking Rhino to have BIM drafting functionalities is the same as asking it from Maya, why? Because Rhino is closer to Maya than it is to Revit.

Ditto. We’re getting nowhere. So this is my last reply (to our back and forth at least). If you want to continue this discussion you can send me a private message.

This statement doesn’t jive with many of your previous posts. And why would Visual ARQ even exist if what you say is true? Rhino with Visual ARQ is definitely closer to Revit than Maya. Even without Visual ARQ, Rhino has many features that really separate it from Maya. It’s nothing like Maya.
Maya fills is respective niche very well (and users pay out the a$$ for it). But Rhino is really a blank canvass that has potential to fill multiple niches (which it does); it’s very customizable. I would LOVE to eat crow see your demo architectural project in Maya, fully annotated, titleblocks, the works. I don’t want to overload you though - you still need to show us that window reveal :wink:

The purpose of this topic was do discuss Rhino’s potential in the realm of architecture, was it not? If someone brings up an issue, simply claiming “I could whip up a grasshopper definition in 20 minutes” is 1) simply not true and 2) not really constructive. If I had time and was a bit better at Grasshopper (I might even have a god next weekend). To make a GOOD window definition takes time. Sure, I could whip up a half-broken definition in 20 minutes but I left that mentality behind when I ditched Revit.

My actual plan is to put together a full Visual ARQ template, complete with my stupid elevation mark(s) and all. It takes A LOT of time to set up all the styles, and create all the definitions you’d need, get the lineweights all looking nice. Not a lot of people have done this (no matter what BIM software you use it’s a lot of work). Also, not many people have really tested the potential of Visual ARQ’s grasshopper components. The developers simply don’t have a lot of feedback. And users don’t have a good foundation/base point to build off of. One of Revit’s biggest advantages is the user created content after all.


boy this topic is getting bloated…