Shell failed: improvement in Rhino 6

So hopefully that will be resolved in Rhino 6 these situations, given that other software can already be time to manage these issues well.
Nothing is impossible, just find the right method. It is important not to overlook certain deficiencies, and then find them in Rhino 6, 7 … etc…

Not to mention the fillet, yes improved compared to the past, but still very far from other modelers: Moi in many cases unable to do better than Rhino! (now also have added the variable radius fillet, even the Boolean often work better …). Rhino, wake up!

Note that Moi3d is based on IntegrityWare’s solid modeling kernel, whereas Rhino is 100% McNeel. The advantages and disadvantages of developing and maintaining one’s own geometry engine have been discussed before…

It’s clear that there is a certain independence and reactivity/interconnectivity that comes from controlling everything yourself, but it comes with the handicap of having enough resources dedicated to its development (in and amongst all the other development work that happens to produce a complete software package).


1 Like

Of course, but if the developments would concentrate on a few parts, the really important ones, related to modeling (fillet, Boolean, surfaces, solids …) Rhino would become much more efficient.
Few things but good, this rule always applies!

At the end of the count results, we can spend hours and hours discussing everything, but what matters is what the software can do.
For example, also SolidThinking has deployed the kernel Parasolid to perform its fittings, better, or not?

That’s just my point… What are the really important parts? Ask 100 different users, you’ll get 100 different answers. Most architects I know couldn’t give a hang about fillets, shelling, etc… OTOH, layouts, layer management, blocks, sectioning, etc. are extremely important for them. So every field will have a different priority list.


1 Like

You’re right, it’s all important!
Everyone asks Rhino what interests him, it’s all relative.
But you can not deny that in recent years there has been no real innovation in Rhino, nothing new or revolutionary. I’m hoping for a shot with the new version.

A little hyperbole there davide?

Neon, 64bit, Grasshopper are just a seconds thought as to the innovations that have happened in the last few years, all of which leave me wondering how I used to cope without them.

Filleting has improved, and while it’s not perfect, can often be resolved by a correct modelling approach. If complex fillets are your thing, then there are VSR tools etc that can help with that specific need.

One of Rhino’s greatest assets IMO is that you can build on it as a platform and get as customised as you wish. Perhaps that’s a good thing? It keeps the core programme affordable and open?

Push for improvements by all means, but credit where it’s due… :wink:

Add Python to that list of huge improvements, and realtime HDRI reflections, procedural materials, technical display modes etc. History and UDT. And the ability to move edges and faces of polysurfaces.

Maybe I exaggerated in saying that there are exciting novelties, something important has been done, nothing to say!
But I was talking about the component “modeling”, Except the commands shelling and solidPtOn, everything has remained almost unchanged, only small improvements here and there. For example, the UDT, great revolution in the time of Rhino 4, remained the same, or not?

Then remove UDT and replace it with realtime shadows, Named Views, better texure mapping, new license manager, an awesome reduce mesh command or something else.
It is true that the actual modelling tools has not improved that much since V4, but there are lots of tools added that make Rhino better suited for larger projects.

I recommend you continue to spend your time on finding examples on HOW new tools should behave or how old tools should be improved, and supply bugs whenever you find that Rhino doesn’t behave well. It’s the best way to help the developers out.

Ok Holo, Thanks.

Margaret, here for you another test, the shelling does not work well(face with red border, 0.3), especially along the joints. You will never run?
Hello and thank you.
Shell failed 4.3dm (351.0 KB)

Yes, this model has under-cuts. This is another weak point for shelling. I have added it to the stack of failure examples.

Margaret,When will be resolved the shelling of a cone? Currently the shelling fails vertex point. This case will ever be solved?