Is there a way to Create the section and create multiple hatching per material ??? without having to manually do it?
The frequency this started to pop up is quite amazing. In short, there’s nothing of that sort in Rhino. But you might be able to get away with using something from here:
Yes, more people need to start coding
The upshot of that long thread is that nothing currently works reliably on all types of objects at this time, as far as I can tell after about a year of experimentation.
For closed polysurfaces and VisualArq objects, Visual Arq vasection will hatch reliably, and it will hatch architectural elements in customizable ways to show their material makeup. But it doesn’t work on open polysurfaces.
If limited to use in model space only, the “Section Tools” plug-in seems to hatch reliably, even for some open polysurfaces. (It doesn’t show Va’s materials display, of course.) But if it’s used via layout space there are actions which will cause its sections to become corrupted beyond repair and transferred to – and stuck in – layout space. Two of these actions are 1) any manipulation of it through a viewport and 2) copying a viewport which displays an ST Section. There may be others. Undo doesn’t reverse this corruption (or any other ST actions).
It’s been suggested that there’s an easy solution to the problem which code-writers can implement.
That’s about the time you can learn to code .
Don’t get offended, now
The “code” approach is a band aid on a larger problem - the hatching doesn’t need to be an object to not to bog down your model.
I wouldn’t expect section hatch to work on those, just like native Rhino fill doesn’t work in that case. If it’s not a solid, it’s an empty shell and you don’t hatch core of empty shells. If you want to - just make it a solid.
How can it be, that the same person hates using third party plugins and encourages people to code highly requested features for themselves?
If there would be solution to this problem made by one user, would you use it or start writing the same thing from scratch?
Probably you already know my opinion about that.
To develop tool like that,
most of the time it is better to have 1 professional who knows what is inside Rhino, than 20 hobbyists making in 80% the same, 20% different tool for themselves.
Couple of them would not upload their plugins because kind of greed, couple of them will upload unfinished product, there will be some ‘tunel vision’ solutions and maybe something actuallly good, but after that you need to hope that this person will take responsibility for it, fix bugs and potentially update it for the newer versions. Well, maybe other will help to fix them, who knows…
What’s so strange?
I ask for people to open their minds and unlock their creativity.
Then share the code.
I’ll be all for 3rd party stuff if they are open-source.
I hate using 3rd party plugins, I don’t preach “don’t use them”, it’s a personal preference.
Another reason for me wanting others to code more is to reduce the overload on McNeel so they can fix bugs faster and develop new functionalities, instead of focusing on stuff feasible with already existing API methods.
I would be happy to code something and help but I just started learning python so I need a bit of time.
Right now I share thoughts, track bugs, record videos which sometimes takes not that little from my free time.
After all McNeel is a successful company isn’t it?
Maybe it should have someone to deal with minor coding stuff.
but it’s not a big one.
Also, creating a functionality (button) to do a certain thing according to one discipline (engineering field) will break its usage for others. This is yet another reason why people should want to code it themselves, so they make it according to their needs.
My view is, each engineering company should have a coder in their team.
I know very little about running company, especially IT. But isn’t it that you can hire people? or outsource some things.
My view is, each engineering company should have a coder in their team
Well, I’m still studying and that is architecture not programming so I’m kinda screwed sometimes. Even if I want to code something useful for me, it would take more time than it is to my deadline.
Thanks. In my architectural work I am making too many open polysurfaces, I think. I need to get more knowledgeable about editing and extruding actions which create closed ones. It’s an incompleteness in my ability, especially for a user closing in on two years with rhino. I’m going to make a post about it.
Have you asked yourself, if Rhino costs 1000 euro perpetual license and CATIA single license package is 20k plus yearly fee. How do they afford maintaining the company and the programmers and keep the price? Trainings? Consultations? Supporting this site?
If there was a “book” where the APIs are documented and exemplified, I’d agree.
What you’re asking people to do is dig into rhinocommon files and figure how shit works that they haven’t worked on themselves themselves. That’s a huge ask for a non-pro coder. No I take it back, that’s a ridiculous ask.
not RhinoCommon files, the API. And yes I complain a lot about the lack of examples, but if more people code there will be more examples. If the free plugins become open-source plugins there will be even more.
Yep, Rhino has enough options in extrude commands to be creating solids every time. And just simple joining surfaces can fix all the open polysrfs pretty fast. Also, use Boolean commands to add, subtract and split solids. It’s fairly easy to keep your models composed out of solids after you get a hang of creating them. MergeAllFaces is a nice one too.
They can charge 1200€ I will gladly try to save some extra cash for them - and I am not from the richest country.
It is not my business and of course I’m happy that Rhino is cheap (anyway I only bought student license so got no “bragging rights”)
That’s right. Make it $1500, but save us the excuse of small indie company and we’re not fixing the bugs, 'cause we’re working on creating new ones for the next version.