The main reason I use rebuildUV is to re-organize control points in a uniform way after a match or anything that creates bad flow. But this command has some other options that are also interesting: Normal, Tight, Straight Sections, and loose.
I think that having these options inside rebuild could give results with better control, without extra steps. Specially when you need to rebuild a very dense surface.
A preview of the control points result would also be of great help.
I would be tempted to maybe not bundle them together, however;
RebuildUV missing any kind of deviation reporting is annoying as heck. I hope that others would agree that would be a much better use of time to introduce first. RebuildUV having a dialog box of its own in which it reports that could be okay, or just for it to disaply in the command line.
I actually never had the pleasure/fortune of using VSR, but do a lot of surface modelling. Actually I don’t see that specific tool adding much more than what already exists in rhino.
We just need a dialog box for rebuild UV additional to the rebuild command, and also a max deviation display inside rebuild uv just like the vsr example you showed. Also, just some letters for UV direction as shown there would be a GODSEND @theoutside , these guys with VSR have it so damn good. Constantly made to feel like all is other rhino users are missing out while the NURBS features get minor footnotes of development.
Well, naturally it’s annoying losing powerful tools, but unfortunately, the people from VSR were genius of coding and user interface, but their plugin cost was higher than Rhino and many people didn’t know why.
I have to recognize that working with VSR forced me to learn some theories about single-span surfaces, patch layouts, primary and secondary surfaces, and other stuff, all related to the automotive approach.
It’s true that not everybody or every project needs this quality, but understanding how to deal with complex surfaces is always good, and the tools should be on the same level. Creation, edition, and analysis should be clear and intuitive, and sometimes I feel that the math behind is there but we need some more fluent communication.
That’s why from time to time when I see something that definitely needs improvements and sounds not so complicated I post a request. If there is something good about rhino, is its the community and how the developers are open to suggestions.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m a bit mystified though because the appetite is there for improvements to matching/blending tools, and the way I’ve made the case in the past is that not being exposed to a plugin like VSR means that the average user doesn’t realise what could be possible within Rhino with some improved tweaks. I feel it’s much harder as a user to communicate what is needed, and would be preferable to me is being told ‘we could do x/y/z, it would enable you to accomplish u/v/w’. Otherwise it’s only pros wanting something they’ve seen before because they know something similar exists. Does that make sense?
I figured you meant something like the below, perhaps withradio buttons so that you only change U or V, although you’re saying the option to bundle it altogether which wouldn’t clutter it up any more to be honest.
Then maximum surface deviation in the RebuildUV Command. Can’t begin to emphasise what a positive move in the right direction that would be. Plus the age old requests for improved highlighting of which is U and V (see VSR, apparently).