Would it be possible to display the “Global Edge Continuity” options while the Patch command is active, so we can see tolerances and potential defects in real time, and adjust the Patch settings on the fly?
Why does Rhino’s Patch fail here?
patch-zeppa-rhino9-test.3dm (2.6 MB)
Yes, please!
I suspect that is due to a bug in Patch, I know @menno has been working heavily on Patch. But the good news is that it is much better in my developer build, so please try this again in an upcoming WIP build. It pays off to always start with 1 U/V spans and experiment with it.
For the lower Patch I found 2 UV spans gave better results.
I also noticed that lowering the G1 tolerance sometimes gives better/simpler surfaces. I see you are using 1 degree. I’m using 0.2 degrees in this example
Although it is possible to generate it in one go, here I am generating 2 patches instead of one long. The pink highlighted surface was created first.
Note: Your model does have some inaccuracies that will influence downstream operations, keep that in mind. I see the edge tolerances are off but haven’t further investigated it.
patch-zeppa-rhino9-test-sg.3dm (1.5 MB)
@brvdln this is also an interesting workflow: Patch-to-Match™:
There is an unfortunate error in this week’s Patch for untrimmed patches, and the video made by @brvdln shows this in all its glory. The good news is the problem is solved in the upcoming WIP version that will be available mid next week. If you need this urgently I can share a link to an older version without the bug.
Thanks for the reply, I’ll wait for the next update to test it on this wedge. @menno
Thanks for your analysis and for the video. @Gijs Regarding the edge tolerances: yes, they’re not perfect, but that’s one of those compromises caused by not having enough time to refine everything properly due to industrial deadlines. Still, it’s fine as it is — the level of precision is already more than high enough. In the footwear industry, the quality of many production models is far worse than this one I made. You wouldn’t believe what I could show you in terms of model (surface) quality — it’s straight out of a horror movie, but that’s another story, haha.
If the level of precision is more than enough, why wouldn’t you model with lower file tolerance then, and create more light weight surfaces as a result?
i would appreciate if we could “Match-not-Patch™”
… I think I am not the only one waiting for an improved _matchSrf - but of course this workaround is tempting…
(by the way ™-ing … i was not very successful with it so far, wanted to brand “make it worse before stitch” - but i am still not famous ;-( … )
This was a one-off case; normally a tolerance of 0.01 works fine.
Certainly not, me included, but let’s keep this thread for discussion about Patch.
Regarding this feature that existed in the old Patch command and is no longer there, has anything been done about it?
Today, for example, I actually needed this function while using the Patch command. I was working in Rhino WIP, then I remembered it wasn’t available anymore, so I switched to Rhino 8 just to be able to use Patch.
_PatchOld
You can always still use PatchOld. The idea is that mesh and pointcloud input will also be supported, but this has not (yet) been realized. I expect that this will be in place before the release date of v9.
It would be helpful if the I/G0/G1/G2 label could indicate a bad constraint test result by displaying it in red.
RH-86838 Show where constraints are not met in the viewport
after the latest update, Patch works properly without creating weird bugs.
Perhaps I’ve discovered a new bug… Go to minute 1:30.
parallelepipedo patch.3dm (5.9 MB)
Very good that the progress bar is now inside the dialog!
(I’d wish the same for e.g. _QuadRemesh.)
credits for that go to @menno
I agree that this would be good to add to QuadRemesh and other commands that have a progressbar and dialog.