That is not correct. Simply because the (theoretical) K-factor (the amount in which the neutral bend axis slides inward) is not the only factor influencing a bending operation, and thus the flat-plate dimensions to start from. The tools and the production method (like the forming method such as air forming, bottoming, or coining) are also factors that influence the deformation of the plate dimensions, and those may vary at different production facilities etc.
Therefore a CAD designer draws the final shape of the product and leave to the production facility to deal with the dimensions of the initial flat plate.
Don’t hate anyone… my comments were simply directed at the completely erroneous statements contained in the quote copied here from another forum, backing that up with my own and a number of other persons’ years of experience producing high precision parts based on Rhino’s CAD files.
I agree 100%. And that would also be my recommendation to any designer in general (CAD or NonCAD). This thread deals with the relation between design and manufacturing and if Rhino could be categorized as an Engineering Software or not (nothing wrong with either or). If a final part realistically need to be recreated before production using any of the methods discussed it would make Rhino primarily a Design-software
Or, they don’t know what they’re talking about, and they’re misleading anyone who reads-then-believes that verbatim.
“they can tell machines what to do” The program would have to be a CAM program or package, for starters, and that’s just the beginning of attempting to “tell machines what to do”.
Even someone programming G-code ‘by hand’ is attempting to “tell machines what to do” – but machines still have to interpret the code and the outcome isn’t always what’s expected until the machines kinematic behavior is well-known and predicted ahead of time.
Every situation is unique and most likely there’s infinitely many interpretations. The CAM realm can easily have a sunk cost of 10’s of 1’000’s of dollars in upwards of 100’s of 1’000’s of dollars.
Hence, infinitely many interpretations. CATIA, SolidWorks, Inventor – yes these programs are powerful, but the risk versus reward is absolutely terrible. Yes, if I had millions of dollars to waste, I’d probably use those programs. Or if a fortune 500 or 100 company wanted to buy some of my time, I could run those programs for them. But Rhino is better, and those scenarios would still probably need some Rhino involved
No. You’re acting like k-factors in bends are the entirely of engineering. You’re talking about an optional feature most SolidWorks users will never touch, and is only applicable to ONE way of forming steel sheet.
Please understand where I’m writing from. I was just mentioning ONE simple thing which is missing. Another thing would be the obvious lack of standard parametric control of the dimensions (which was actually close to getting into 8 at least in 2D/2.5D via Grasshopper/Kangaroo) and finally the labour intensive and very non-intuitive way you need to setup a simple drawing sheetset with multiple pagesizes and details - compared to a CAE software.
Perhaps some of the different opinions in this thread about using Rhino in “engineering” are due to different understandings of what is meant by “engineering”.
It is very easy for an individual to think that their experiences apply much more broadly than perhaps is warrented.
Over the last 25 years, I have on numerous occasions received files generated by CATIA , Solidworks and Autodesk Inventor that were unfit for purpose. Over the years I have been paid well to make these files usable for making parts for major manufacturing corporations.
From what I have observed, one can make garbage in CATIA , Solidworks and Autodesk Inventor just as easily as Rhino. Well, I have no way of knowing how easy it is in those other software but it seems to be a common.
And just to add… The sheetmetal automation tools are a crutch, they may make pretty models and pictures, but are only partially useful.
Quickly found that the tools in Solidworks were not up to the task, the shops that I was sending flattened DXF files were reworking them straight away in 2D CAD, manually adjusting corner geometry, K-Factor, Bends, etc on the fly to meet the tolerances and final fitup that we required.
Fancy parametric automation features do not beat well trained CAD/CAM programmers who know how to really do it.
I confirm in my case I use Rhino for designing in the footwear sector, accessories and jewelry and other projects in other sectors
in creating precision designs and molds. I can say that fanboys of programs like Catia, Inventor, >Cimatron, Nx create garbage that I have to fix in Rhino.
This guy is full of s***. You might want to post a response on that forum and reference this Discourse thread.
I ran a business for 10 years focused on CNC machining high-precision model and prototype parts - all coming from Rhino. There are dozens of other people on this forum who are doing all kinds of precision manufacturing directly from Rhino models.
Anybody who says this kind of thing about Rhino has no idea what they are talking about and probably has never used it.
We use Rhino to construct laminating tools from customer data that has been constructed in Catia, NX etc. It’s usually sent as Step data that Rhino can open and export. In fact Step is common to all CAD packages if I’m not mistaken. These models are then CNC machined.
We use it to create technical drawings and assembly guides using Layouts which are saved as PDF.
We unroll complex 3d surfaces and export them as DXF to be cut by our plotter.
We also import 3D Scan data to reverse engineer products and export as Step. I’ve had customers who spend tens of thousands on CAD packages be amazed what Rhino is capable of. Of course there is more specialized software for different tasks but Rhino really is like a swiss army knife if you know what your doing with it. It’s capable of so many things. Hats off to McNeel!
As has already been said, ignore this guy and seek the wisdom of the people here
Ideally, for surfaces& edit Rhino, for solid & edit Inventor or Solid Work. Like Shell plating and casting.
Rhino fail when the file is big and doesn’t has “regen all” like AutoCad and the cursor is not very accurate.
Here is a picture of my fishing vessel make all in Rhino: Structure, shell plating and nesting…
Hello All,
I use Rhino often for sheet metal work, mainly airframe stuff.
Here was the initial challenge. - A tissue box sized article that for assembly required cleco and rivet gun only - no drills or post router reaming allowed. Holes to require no deburring post router. (A tissue box size is much more difficult than even a shoe box size because the material will not bend to fit.)
Material 6061T6 aluminium. Thicknesses demonstrated: 0.016, 0.020"
Bend allowance for Magnabender - 2mm set.
I use Vectric software for toolpaths.
In the end, the result was easy, but the working out was laborious, slow and repetitive.
Personally, I find Rhino is easier for sheetmetal than Fusion.
There is also the fact that I have much more control over the files, but admittedly that is a function of how much I regularly want to water Autodesk’s bank account!
Hi David,
See this picture for understand my idea:
the current Rhino cursor has a not very fine crosshair and its center point moves in a delayed way, which I am not satisfied with as you can see in the following video:
Hello Pascal,
Thank you for your interest.
It is not a performance problem, it is a problem of the cursor design that I am not satisfied with. The image above that I drew represents the ideal cursor for me with the center automatically leading to the curve.
The size of the crosshairs could be customized.
Hi Pascal.
Thanks for your message.
It happen if Osnaps are active or not as show in this video below.
May be is a cursor wrong setting that I don’t not if it’s feasible to correct.
I see, thanks - and in a new file? I’d like to know if this happens all the time on your system, under any conditions or if it specific to a file, or to having a background image or…?
