I just downloaded Rhino 8 WIP and updated to the latest version.
I was very interested in the constraints options but it does not work, or am I missing something?
I go to the menu/windows/ panels /constraints to get the window and Rhino
Returns with the following:
I think it has allot of value in the die line industry so I hope to see it in the future.
I does save allot of time than trying to build it in grasshopper.
I’m bummed. I was really looking to have constraints, as it’s very useful in figuring out geometry that would otherwise seem unsolvable. Is there any chance it may still be in Rhino 8 as a hidden command?
I wish I had seen this before starting a 90 day trial for V8. The lack of a constraint system and difficulty getting used to the UI organisation are the main hindrances to moving over from my current software. Is it a fair guess to assume v9 complete with constraints will be at least 3 years away?
The 3 years ballpark guess for a Rhino 9 release is fair, yes. Whether that version will have constraints depends on that project getting better defined, though.
If you could start a new thread with a somewhat detailed description of how you would use the feature in your workflow, that would be a great help.
-wim
I am shocked that constraints are viewed as a solution looking for a problem by Rhino developers.
I don’t really want to describe my work process in too much detail on a discussion forum, and I don’t understand why something so fundamental to design in general needs a specific use case.
Currently I rely on constraints in every design project. My work makes use of composite arcs generated from a simple seed geometry, the arcs must remain tangent to each other when changes are made to the seed geometry. The seed geometry (template) defines the location of arc centres, start points and end points, tangent constraints maintain continuity along the boundary even when the seed geometry is altered. Normally my projects layer a number of parametrically constrained templates like this to arrive at the final design. In Fusion 360 I set the changeable dimensions using variables that permeate through an entire stack of templates making the design very easy to edit. It would be nice to do this in Rhino, especially with the potential to leverage Grasshopper to drive the designs in a way that is not possible in Fusion 360.
My description was rather that working constraints would be useful even when defining variables in grasshopper. I don’t think Grasshopper is a viable alternative to geometric/dimensional constraints in terms of workflow and usability. It looks like I am stuck with yet another 3 year Autodesk subscription.
I think it is a interessting Connection, when you can draw a 2D Sketch with Constraints in Rhino and this Sketch you can to use in Grasshopper to modify or as basic Geometry for Grasshopper definition. This wear a very more interesting Workflow in designprocess.
yes, with one huge exception - once you’re done with GH, you must bake the result, and baked result is dead result. Any change in input data means you have to delete your current solution and start over.
Many people would love to see some sort of ‘live’ geometry, that can change completely with changes to input definition / constraints / parameters.
That is the direction the CAD world aims towards, I assume.
It was a very poor decision and especially very poor communication on McNell’s part that it was simply removed from the final version. It was one of the reasons for me to upgrade to Rhino 8. Who tells us that it will be integrated into Rhino 9 and that the same thing won’t happen again?
Hello WIM,
very much appreciate your work for constraints and would love to give you some more reasons on why this is important for so many people and the adoption of rhino by more professionals.
Rhino currently cant call itself a true parametric design software, because it doesnt have constraints. GH is powerful but considered generative design not truly parametric by pros.
Every 3k/y software heavely rely on parametric constraints, because the workflow is so intuitive. Make 2D sketches to affect your 3D object in real time.
Sorting constraints by block and calling it a part manager.
Thats what everyone else is doing.
In F its the Browser and in SW the PartManager design tree is the main feature in the top left.
Every important feature a professional wants relies on this.
Intuitive Iteration without baking aka true parametric design. Data-analysis by part like weight. Iteration control.
The closest thing Rhino has (not yet) are constraints and the block manager.
I dont understand how McNeel doesnt support your development more and hope MCNeel is reconsidering their desicion on this, because bringing parametric constraints would make Rhino a true value proposition for many pros.
Just look how many people came from sketchup when you introduced push/pull in V8.
Love to see Rhino succeed and implementing block-constraints would be amazing.
not sure constraints would push it into the ballpark of parametric.
who are those pros? is that something you call your buddies in the office this is a pretty casual expression which does not provide any information.
also i might not be clear about the terminology myself though these are just names but while i probably would give AI the crown of generative design, from how i understand it, grasshopper could probably fit into 3 categories, parametric, generative and computational. so i personally dont see any point in comparing these and mark grasshopper as a lesser product due to some arbitrary definition aspects.
this is a pretty casual expression which does not provide any information.