Rhinolands Feature Request: **Plant Mixes**

[hughecchapman]

I’ve been in touch with Rhinolands development team about this previously but haven’t received any assurance that this enhanced functionality is in the pipeline.

Having found the functionality I need is still missing in the latest version of Rhinolands, I’m writing this post in case there is any lack of clarity in terms of the functionality I’m asking for.

Rhinolands enables plants and trees to be inserted in a number of different ways:

“Insert plants individually, in rows, or in groups using the Forest tool. Specify shrubs or ground
covers and the number per unit. Combine various species in rows or forests.”

These are all useful in different circumstances.

But there is a key functionality missing.

What I Need

I need to be able to define planting mixes which can be applied to areas in a design.

By “define planting mixes” I mean the following:

• Selecting a number of plant species from the plant database
• Defining the proportion of each of these species in the planting mix by percentage

Different mixes will then be applied to different planting areas in the design.

Other landscape softwares / plugins have this functionality, but at the moment the closest I can get to my desired workflow in Rhinolands is running the forest tool a series of times for the same planting area with a manual calculation of numbers/densities for each species. This is a laborious workaround, especially where I want to define multiple different plant mixes for multiple different planting areas.

In terms of how this functionality would be implemented, perhaps there should be a new planting insertion tool called ‘Planting Mix’ which could be an enhanced version of the existing Forest tool, enabling a multi-species mix to be defined as described above whilst retaining the per-species control the Forest tool enables in terms of appearance, distribution/grouping etc.

It’s essential that planting mixes, once defined, can be saved and reloaded between projects.

[albert (Albert Rodríguez)]

Thanks for the detailed request, this kind of feedback is very useful. I encourage everybody to share their wish list for version 7, as we are now planning the development and selecting the new features to be included.

Regarding the functionality you need, I guess you have already tried to combine species in a forest.

In current version it doesn’t allow to select the proportion (by percentage) of each species, and the existing distribution methods are quite limited. We plan to improve them significantly. I think your request can be implemented as a new distribution method for the current “Combine elements” option, but we can also consider the Planting Mix tool you mentioned to insert individual elements. However, the advantage of implementing it in the Forest object is that user can use the Redistribute option at any time to get a different distribution from the same parameter values (using new random numbers).

About saving the planting mixes, you would like to save them into a 3dm template? As a separated file? What info would you like to save? Just the species list and the percentages?

[hughecchapman]

Thanks Albert, good to know enhanced functionality is in the pipeline.

Yes I know about the option to combine species in a forest but as you say there’s currently no option to control the proportion of each species by percentage, so this doesn’t currently enable the workflow I’m requesting.

You probably know better than I do how best to implement my request in terms of RhinoLand’s existing functionality. I think enhancing the ‘Combine Elements’ function within the Forest object to enable control of the percentages of different species in the mix will work, but ‘Forest’ is not a logical or intuitive name for what is often likely to be a shrub mix or a herbaceous planting mix. So although it involves duplication of functionality, I would prefer to see a new Planting Mix tool alongside an enhanced Forest tool (which will allow for more nuanced control of tree mixes). Not just semantic pedantry - I think it’s important that Rhinolands makes intuitive sense to new users. From my perspective this planting mix functionality is an important addition to RhinoLands’ functionality and I think it would be better not to have it ‘hidden’ in the Forest tool.

In terms of saving planting mixes, species list and percentages is the essential info. If possible it would also be useful to save other per-species user settings like mininmum distance, rotation, spacing, scatter, but this could wait for a future update if it will hold up delivery of the essential functionality.

I’m not sure what will work best re. file format for saving planting mixes. The most basic option (if viable?) would be a .txt file. I need to do some research to find out if there are existing protocols/ formats it might be useful to tie in with - I’ll come back to you if I discover anything useful.

[elham]

@hughecchapman

I’ll come back to you if I discover anything useful.

Thanks a lot. Planting mix and planting pattern are requested by some other users too. We consider it important to implement it somehow.

[YITIAN]

Controlling the proportion of mixed planting is not difficult. This is a design I did in China. The plants are automatically distributed based on the sunshine duration, and it’s made with Grasshopper. However, the official Grasshopper components only have a single - color preview, without a rendering preview mode. Moreover, the option for the four - season changes of Grasshopper plants doesn’t work, and it still needs to be adjusted in the main Rhino interface.

[hughecchapman]

Thanks for sharing this @YITIAN.

@YITIAN

The plants are automatically distributed based on the sunshine duration

Interesting. How are you calculating sunshine duration…? I’ve not used it myself but I know that Ladybug Tools can do this as part of sun/shade analysis. And are you assigning individual plant species in the mix an optimal duration of sun on an average day or seasonal basis…?

I’m not experienced with Grasshopper myself but others may be interested if you are happy/able to share your definitions.

[hughecchapman]

@albert @elham I was testing out Keyscape for AutoCad with Plant Partner today.

Some advantages of enabling integration with a 3rd party plant database like Plant Partner are:

• The selection of species in the database is appropriate for the national/regional context
• Species names are correct for the national/regional context
• Specifications are in-line with national/regional best practice (1)
• There is potential to coordinate with local/ regional plant & tree nurseries

In developing the planting design and scheduling functionality of Rhinolands I would recommend you reach out to 3rd party plant databases like Plant Partner with the aim of enabling integration.

I don’t know whether there is overlap here with what I hear is an ongoing discussion about adding table/spreadsheet functionality within Rhino 9. You may know more about these discussions than I do. cc @stevebaer

notes:

(1) Specification parameters include: for trees: stem diameter, height, number of times undercut, airpot, rootball or bare root, clear stem height; for fruit trees: rootstock; for multistem trees and woody shrubs: number of stems, height, airpot, rootball or bare root, pot size; for herbaceous plants: pot size

[hughecchapman]

@albert @elham last thought for now -

I might have implied this already but just to state it clearly - From my perspective the ability to visualise planting designs in Rhino in 3D is of secondary importance to the enhanced mixes & scheduling functionality I’m requesting. In terms of issuing detailed planting designs, 2D planting plans & schedules are what is required, and these are the outputs that will be used on site by contractors.

If/when 3D visualisations are required, creating a ‘broad brush’ impression of what planting will look like is often more important than 100% accurate representation of plant species.

In terms of creating more realistic visualisations of planting in Rhino (without Rhinolands), my experience is that using 2D “billboard” cutouts can produce better results than using 3D assets, and helps keep file size under control.

Exporting/linking a 3D model of hardscape and/or ground topography and then adding trees, planting elements & textures in a rendering engine like Twinmotion / Lumion / D5 Render is also an entirely viable workflow and may be preferable in terms of efficiency and managing file size.

So I question whether creating/adding to a library of 3D plant assets needs to be a priority for Rhinolands. To me, at any rate, this is of secondary importance.

[elham]

@hughecchapman

functionality I’m requesting

Hi @hughecchapman ,Thank you for sharing your ideas and suggestions. We have discussed working with Plant Partner in the past, but their database is limited to the UK, which doesn’t benefit other regions. Our goal is to develop a list of similar data providers worldwide, but this is beyond our current scope.

We are focusing on enhancing plant combinations and adding new functionalities for the next version. Regarding your suggestion to use billboards or a similar approach, we believe it could improve performance and recommend it for large-scale projects.

At the moment, our efforts are primarily directed toward improving database functionalities and performance solutions, rather than adding new plant models.
We appreciate your input and agree with your ideas. Thanks again, and please feel free to share any other concerns or suggestions with us.

[hughecchapman]

Many thanks Elham.

@elham

We have discussed working with Plant Partner in the past, but their database is limited to the UK, which doesn’t benefit other regions. Our goal is to develop a list of similar data providers worldwide, but this is beyond our current scope.

Just to clarify - I’m not proposing any official partnership between Rhinolands and Plant Partner and similar providers, just suggesting it would make good sense to work towards Rhinolands’ planting design and scheduling functionality being able to integrate with these kinds of 3rd party databases. Is there a standardised format for plant info/specifications that planting design software can read and export…? If not, what format does Plant Partner provide planting info/specifications in that Keyscape can read? Would it be worth making sure Rhinolands can import plant info & specs in this format to streamline potential integration with third party plant databases?

[YITIAN]

Hello! I suggest that you create your own database structure and the ports for connection. In fact, the key is the control of the data structure. Then, integrate with the third - party presentation software you prefer. The controllability of self - recording data is much higher than searching for data online. Our studio operates in this way. Also, you can use DBeaver to quickly edit the plant data of Rhinolands for the second time, which is much faster than editing within their interface.
The official database editing is not user - friendly for batch processing, so we need to find alternative ways.My English is poor, and I rely entirely on screenshot - based translation software. There are no relevant technology - discussion forums in China yet, which really frustrates me.

The official promotion in China is relatively scarce. In fact, the Chinese market is huge. It’s really frustrating that there is no good ecosystem.

[YITIAN]

There are many tutorials about Ladybug on YouTube. In China, we need a VPN to access videos on YouTube. There are also video - sharing platforms in China that introduce it, but the relevant resources are relatively scarce.

[elham]

An update: specifications provided by Plant partner can be delivered if you export your plant list as an Excel file. There is no problem, if you have an account there. You know the export list option in Lands. However, we would like to manage an API for a smooth connection. We’ll add it to the wish list.

[hughecchapman]

Many thanks for the update

[Jon_Brooke]

I would second some of Hugh’s feature requests related to plant database, particularly with regard to using Rhinolands for planting plan production.

It would be important to have a plant database that responds to local cultural practices, including commonly used species, and including aspects like plant mixes. It’s true that providing this flexibility could be very complex-- different types of plants are specified in different ways in different markets. For example in most parts of the North America, plant specifications follow ANSI Z 60.1 and shade trees are specified by trunk diameter (DBH), whereas ornamental trees, multi-stem trees and conifers are specified by height, but in some parts of the USA they are specified by container or box size (you just sort of have to know where!). I used to work in the UK and I know standards are different, trees follow size ranges based on trunk girth, and the distinction between shade and ornamental tree largely does not exist (Hugh, I’m guessing you are in the UK, so please set me straight). Again in the North America Shrubs, Grasses, Perennials and Ground-covers, plus native plants are all specified in slightly different ways and the distinctions between each category varies by market, and even by design firm. The very reason that scientific names exist is because the same plants have different common names wherever you go–Acer pseudoplatanus is called “Sycamore” in the UK, but Sycamore Maple in the USA, to distinguish it from Platanus occidentalis which is called Sycamore here.

The plant database should

1. Have the ability to be supplemented by localized external plugin (you could sell these as add-ons) to allow a robust plant list or schedule to be created with the right localized market or specifier information.
2. Be customizable and sharable plant databases (across a network or freely between users)
3. Have enough fields (unit, unit size, height, additional cultivars, form, spacing, category, additional common names, etc) with the ability to turn on and off the display of each attribute in a defined schedule template.
   Again, to echo Hugh, in my view the ability to deliver professional planting plants is much more important that rendering output. You can always “fake” a plant texture with something vaguely similar or use an external renderer with its own customization like Lumion.

A well-implemented competitive product with database that works well for the USA market is LandFX, with a corresponding Revit Plugin, PlantFX.

[elham]

Hi Jon,
Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I’d like to clarify a few features you might not have tested yet:

1. External plugins or specification providers: We are currently working on it. It may soon offer an API to link to external plant specifications at local and national scales. We still need to explore available providers.
2. The plant database is customizable — you can add new plant species and save them in a centralized folder to share with your team. You can see how to do that here.
3. Lands Design includes a feature called Export List, which allows you to add extra data to an Excel file. However, we are aware that having a more customizable list would benefit our users, and we are actively working on improving that.

Many thanks again for your valuable feedback. We’ll continue exploring possible improvements.
Please stay in touch!