That’s a good idea. I opened the issue here for the icon.
2 Likes
My idea is that you should not allow this. If you explode a box you and reference with script to internal surface with some index it will break the script. Rhino needs a true solid object, unlike closed-solid-polysurface. Lack of this object is a huge drawback. Many industries rely on difference between closed-volume and a solid-object, One is just several surfaces, other is a solid, the cross section of the two should have different results. Closed Volume intersected should result in the contour line result of the intersection, True solid on the other hand should result in a surface slice.
A section view in drawing of one is just a few lines/curves, the other will(should) invoke a hatch inside.
1 Like
Could you add support for splitting curves? From the top of my head I don’t recall the trim/extend behaviour, but those should ideally also keep constraints in-tact as much as possible.
1 Like
Yes, thanks for the feedback. I’m in the process of handling your last big set of suggestions and this was one I am in the process of fixing. I opened the issue here.
3 Likes
Do you need to create a sketch to add a constraint, or will it be possible to do so directly on the 3D Geometry? For example, select a hole in an imported model, and constrain the diameter and distance from a face of the model? Alternatively, some provision to link an imported geometry feature to a sketch so it can be driven by constraints.
2 Likes
will you add a warning if a sketch is over defined? I tested it to see if you added anything to prevent this or what would happen and it just crashes. it should show where its over defined or at the very least just prevent you from executing the constraint or dimension.
1 Like
The current behavior will prevent adding a constraint if it detects a conflict. The crash also sounds quite bad but I cannot reproduce on my end. Do you have an example file with steps to reproduce?
1 Like
if you create a rectangle you shouldn’t be allowed to dimension all 4 sides because if you change one of them it will be over defined. It looks like there was an update for rhino yesterday? I installed it and it seems to not crash now but it’s still allowing for dimensioning different sides and even having vertical and horizontal constraints that shouldn’t work technically break it but doesn’t tell the user its wrong.
1 Like
I believe you should be able to add dimensions as you need them. The default behavior in a lot of parametric software is that a dimension will automatically switch to “driven” instead of driving.
This is very useful, because sometimes you need the driven dimension as a reference dimension. It would be great if a driven dimension would be visually different (Different color), or automatically add Parenthesis to indicate it’s driven instead of driving.
4 Likes
on the same page with you Mark, its perfectly fine to have a driven dimension, but just felt it should have a pop up or some message stating that to be the case. Its currently allowing me to add constraints and dimensions that are actually impossible to have together and up until today was actually crashing my machine so that’s more of the reason why I brought it up here.
1 Like
I hear you. It’s obviously still a work in progress, but I’m really looking forward to having this functionality. It will speed up making profiles. Exciting to see the progress in this area.
1 Like
Just to clarify - @Ryan656 are you talking about actually conflicting constraints, or redundant ones?
Neither should crash it, but trying to add actively conflicting constraints (such as making a line of fixed length both horizontal and vertical) should currently be detected and prevented, with a message on the command line.
As for adding non-conflicting but redundant constraints (such as making line A vertical, line B horizontal, then also making A and B perpendicular), it currently does not prevent this - we know this is an issue and are working on it.
1 Like
At a risk of asking something completely off topic, there is no way to apply these constraints to objects other than curves (e.g. boxes, polySrfs, blocks etc.)?
3 Likes
Hi Daniel, that’s right, before I updated rhino it was crashing when adding conflicting constraints, after I installed the update it allows it which is technically incorrect, but now it doesn’t crash which is of course better and the main reason I brought it up. You seem to be aware of the issue so hopefully it will get fixed at some point 
1 Like
Are there any updates coming up (e.g.the constraints toolbar) in the next few weeks? I’m contemplating whether or not I’ll give this a new try.
1 Like
Hoi -
No. This project is on hold until we start working on Rhino 9 WIPs.
-wim
1 Like
That’s very disappointing to hear, it was the main thing I was looking forward to for V8…
It is also by far the most clicked link in the WIP features thread, so I must not be the only one to think so.
E: @wim the feature should then be removed from this list, I would assume:
3 Likes
I am very exitced to see constraints in Rhino and the ability to use them within Grasshopper hopefully
1 Like
Looks like this project it is postponed for Rhino9.
They need to solve a lot of problems to make the Constraints really working, like the incorporation of spreadsheets support in Rhino to be able to drive the Constraints using mathematical formulas a la SolidWorks or FreeCAD.
P.S. Spreadsheets are also useful for the creation of BOMs in Rhino. I cannot wait for this feature to be incorporated in Rhino.
McNeel should have a look at the defunct “RhinoWorks” plugin.
4 Likes