McNeel, if you want to survive in the jungle of the CAD software should do faster. The timing is an important factor in the selection and purchase of software. Five years of development would be justified if the CAD would provide innovative and advanced modeling tools.
The development is too slow: subD at an early stage (many competitors software for several years have this feature); modeling tools, the usual, always the same (apart from minor improvements here and there and the welcome news of the shelling). Too focused on marginal factors and soon turned to modeling and editing of surfaces, such as: rendering, grasshopper, various views not needed, and so on.
Also MOI runs faster, whereas software is a younger and less mature, will not have the same number of Rhino tools, but is able to model all with simplicity and discreet power, as Rhino⌠and coast 1/5 about!
Each new version: the same bug to be fixed, the same problems, minor adjustments and additions, but nothing revolutionary.
From a point of view of marketing: why you should buy the new version of Rhino? What possesses innovative than 5 Rhino? A few more options could justify its purchase?
I ask all of you without any controversyâŚ
McNeel made almost no progress in the field of geometric modeling kernels because they are small, employee owned company. They simply do not have the resources to work faster. If Autodesk purchases McNeel, they will have plenty of resources, but they prefer to remain employee owned company. (In my opinion T-splines are better than subdivision surfaces.)
At the end count the numbers, the results. The work done by the developers is admirable, but with each release will highlight the usual bug, the usual problems, there are no fixed points, it all seems precarious, unstable, indefinite (it is my impression).
Forget the big, such as Autodesk, Dassault, Siemens âŚ, you can not make any comparison!
If Autodesk were to purchase McNeel, Rhino would be dead for all intents and purposes. Therefore, your âplenty of resourcesâ argument doesnât hold any water, as there wonât be any Rhino (as we know it) to put resources intoâŚ
In my opinion Rhino reminds me of a messy tool bag, there are useful tools in there, you just need to spend time searching for them. I donât see anything in V6 that would have me give up the V5 plugins I use (e.g. VSR). MoI3D is a different animal with an optimized workflow when compared to Rhino, however I donât think it is encumbered by the same baggage as Rhino.
An Autodesk acquisition does have a downside, cloud may seem OK until you understand that their liability for your information being lost or stolen is $100. I see that your information is encrypted in transit, but once it resides on the server there is no mention that I can find of it being secured at that point. That in itself is reason for not using any cloud solution, someone hacks them and encrypts that data they hold customers IP for ransom.
If Autodesk bought out McNeel this would become a Fusion 360 forum. Rhino would be scavenged for itâs strong points and killed off. Isnât that the very definition of âFusionâ? They named that product very appropriately.
I was surprised at the Autodesk booth at IMTS back in September. It was all about CAM. Theyâre really making a shift in their marketing strategy since they swallowed up Delcam.
I donât mind at all that Rhino is developed slowly. Yes, there are features Iâd like to see added as soon as possible, sub-d now that T-Splines is no more, and improvements to the core surfacing tools. However, I can still do what I need to with Rhino as is. It may not be the quickest or easiest but it gets the job done.
Of course Iâd like to see improvements but if you consider the affordable cost (without annual paid updates), stability, and excellent support, then Rhinoâs slow development doesnât seem such a bad thing.
For about one year I was posting Rhino help file bugs and omissions. Margaret Becker was tired of it and said that she had no time to fix all the bugs. When the first version of Bongo 2.0 help file was released, I sent her (via Marika Almgren) ten-page long report about bugs and omissions in the help file. This was the basis of major re-write of the help file. I was driven out of Flamingo forum because I reported all its bugs.
Yeah⌠youâll be nobodyâs friend if you keep on pointing out their flaws and weaknessesâŚ
I stopped using Penguin, Bongo and Flamingo all together due to this, it was no return of investment in it. But Rhino is a software I could not live without, and V5 is probably the most stable software I have ever beaten the heck out of. It is a workhorse. Reliable, predicable and rock solid.
In my opinion, in addition to the slow pace of development, Rhino has lost sight of its main function: "free form surface modeler."
Add a few small options to existing commands (always the same) it has little significance. The command patch, for example, is always the same, lacking! The fillet is always the same. The UDT are equal to those of Rhino 4. The editing of surfaces? always lacking and limited, but small improvements!
The only true revolutionary command was the âshellingâ. All other things have been revised and adjusted.
If you are unable to work optimally with Rhino 5 why upgrade to Rhino 6?
Solve some fillet and have a good rendering engine or grasshopper does not justify a possible upgrade. Too little! In addition, you can no longer use nor VSR nor T-Splines.
I think Rhino is having some difficulty. Development strategies should be reviewed in the logic of the above.
Enough with rendering and various views: Rhino is not V-Ray!
Enough with Grasshopper: who will use it? some architect � We would like to see the modeling tools and editing state of the art! (little provocation).
You need to realize that part of why Rhino is so successful now is that it is so much more than a surface modeler now and âsome architectsâ are a big part of the user base. McNeel development is responding to many usersâ needs and they are being very smart about it.
As @MisterB and @Holo said, I too prefer way more a solid stable tool with slower and more thorough development than a set of shiny new features every year that are not well tested, buggy and poorly implemented.
I like the small improvements - on a daily basis these small tweaks and McNeel ability to listen and implement them makes Rhino very reliable to work with. Of course I too always wish for more and we will see it coming, but this development pace as a trade-off for solid, stable product is something I am more than happy to live with.
We are a minority. I have not seen any software review that mentions bugs. When I wrote software review myself, it was accepted for publication, but rejected in the last moment because I sent private letter to one of the software vendors and criticized its bugs. The same software vendor was posting advertisements in the same computer magazine. (money talks)
Rhino gets better and better with each version. GH + RH is a beast of a tool and I have no words to express how much I am grateful for this. With that combo Iâm in heavenâŚMy bread and butter work was taking me about 3hâŚnow itâs 5 seconds. Have so much more time for research and getting to know Rhino on the much deeper lever than I used to. For the last 6 months or so I solely use R6 WIP with an exception of rendering which still needs to be done in R5âŚWhy? R6 already opened up many methods previously unavailable and I simply couldnât go back to R5 because of these "minor adjustments and additions"
Fusion etc might be cool and funkyâŚbut where the real work needs to be doneâŚRhino all the way.
