Sketchup is more popular than Rhino in a few categories, but why exactly?

[ShynnSup]

@keshavanarayan82

To be clear, I USE RHINO EVERYDAY so I know what’s in it and it’s my go to solution even though skp exists.

Ok. Then why do you ask things you know are not possible like outputting vector lines from a display mode?!? Display mode is just that, a visualization, an image. It will never happen. Not any time soon at least.

@keshavanarayan82

And I’m not impressed to have to make2d everytime I change something.

You don’t have to. It all comes down to workflow optimization:
For instance, if you are in a stage where most things are WIP and nothing is certain or final and you know for sure that things will soon change in a relatively small time frame, then your documentation can simple be clipping planes in arctic mode. Save the view and everytime you update the model the view will update and all you have to do is ViewCapture. You can tweak display modes so that they practically look like Make2D.

Then, if you are approaching more final design stages, then you can pace the frequency in which you make presentations? So that not every little change is documented but rather 2D documentation gets updated after big changes or enough small changes have taken place to justify re Making2D.

You can also automatize Make2D with Grasshopper so that you only have to press a single button for all your views to be reprojected. You can set it in a way so that Grasshopper moves the geometry into the same location the Layout view is set, so instantly updating all your Layouts.

@keshavanarayan82

If you want to have the tag change name when you change the name of the object and it’s attributes, the tags change in layout automatically.

That’s just more of the same thing. Live updating between 3D and 2D. A lot of this can be done with Grasshopper. Say you change door models. You can make a definition where you input all text, select all text mentioning the word ‘door A’ and replace it with ‘door B’. Done.

---

I feel this conversation is diverting. I want to go back to this statement.

@keshavanarayan82

I think the argument here is that SketchUp, however trivial it is, cam be used on its own to complete an architectural building model with drawings. However that is not the case with Rhino.

This is not true. No one is denying that live 3D to 2D is nice and would be nice. But is not a must, and it surely is not essential. Architecture has done fine for millennia first with only carvings, then clay models, then with paper, then with 2D computer aided drafting, then with 3D modelling, and just now in present day we have been using BIM for some years.

Do you really think people are not completing architectural projects because they don’t have live 3D to 2D annotations? There is people still doing architecture only in paper! Or only using Autocad!

@keshavanarayan82

Here’s my all time favourite @ShynnSup .

I think this is part of the issue, instead of linking to a convoluted thread from 2020 with over 423 replies, it would be of great help to McNeel staff and developers if you could specify exactly what you are after.

And I don’t mean “make Rhino work like Revit” or “3D to 2D live link”. Rhino already does this the same way Sketchup does, by placing a viewport window in the layout. In this sense any change you do to your model is automatically updated in your layout, same as SU.

Now, I imagine a good specific request that should not be too hard to implement would be having labels or leaders return the name of the object.
Another specific request could be an option so that dimensions in layout display real dimensions.

[keshavanarayan82 (keshavanarayan)]

@ShynnSup

Ok. Then why do you ask things you know are not possible like outputting vector lines from a display mode?!? Display mode is just that, a visualization, an image. It will never happen. Not any time soon at least.

Wow. Have you not used Revit or any other software for that matter? They do give vectors from the 3d viewport. So, I don’t think the argument that it’s not possible any time soon is not acceptable.

@ShynnSup

No one is denying that live 3D to 2D is nice and would be nice. But is not a must, and it surely is not essential. Architecture has done fine for millennia first with only carvings, then clay models, then with paper, then with 2D computer aided drafting, then with 3D modelling, and just now in present day we have been using BIM for some years.

If we use this argument for everything then nothing will help us progress.

I know gh exists and I USE IT QUITE OFTEN for the same workflow as you describe actually. gh should not be the hammer for every mundane solution as I see it.

@ShynnSup

Now, I imagine a good specific request that should not be too hard to implement would be having labels or leaders return the name of the object.

This I agree.

Just reiterating myself here again.

@keshavanarayan82

And again, I do understand the modeling capabilities of Rhino. I use Rhino for my everyday tasks than skp tbh. And you will not see me so active in the SKP forum since the community is not as great as Rhino. McNeel team is doing a great job in handling this community so well.

I am suggesting these features to the McNeel team as a well-wisher and a long-time user of the tool. Whether they want to implement this or not is completely up to them.

I don’t want to extend this further and urge someone else to respond as we have taken off on a tangent. Thoughts?

[Eugen]

@ShynnSup

like outputting vector lines from a display mode

VisualArq’s display mode ‘Hidden’ can do exactly that. So it’ possible.

[solarius (Colbert)]

@ShynnSup

Now, I imagine a good specific request that should not be too hard to implement would be having labels or leaders return the name of the object.

There’s a text field “ObjectName” that exactly does that. (it’s not perfect and sometimes needs to be manually updated if the id of the object change due to split or other commands, but it works)

[ShynnSup]

What does it do? Does it hatch areas too? Or is it just making a Make2D under the hood and pasting that on top of the screenshot?

To be clear, that is not what SU does. It does not convert your viewport automatically into vector. So now we are asking for stuff not even SU does.

[Eugen]

Here’s a demo-PDF from their ‘villa savoye’ demoscene, quickly printed from layout with viewports set to ‘Hidden’, except the rendered one.
Villa Savoye Model.pdf (2.1 MB)

No, unfortunately it does not create hatches, nor intersections. So, it half sucks… Still, to my knowledge, VisualArq is the only way to achieve vector PDFs other than wireframe, without any Make2D fuss.
I hold Asuni in high esteem because they are among the rare plugin developers that identified Rhino’s weaknesses regarding… well, numerous things that concern me in architecture, and do something about it. It’s their business model, and it seems to work.
They still don’t boost Rhino into parametric modelling/BIM heaven, by a long shot, but I keep close watch.

@ShynnSup

To be clear, that is not what SU does. It does not convert your viewport automatically into vector. So now we are asking for stuff not even SU does.

I don’t understand, actually. Although I read most of this thread, I forgot who made what point and why, but I concur with @Keithscadservices in that Rhino can do most of what Sketchup does, easily.
I only used Sketchup a few years ago for a small project where I used it’s camera matching tool to model some family home from photos and a few measures. That’s the only tool I miss in Rhino.

[keithscadservices]

Since posting this I haven’t just been reading comments. I’ve been digging deeper into the things I originally listed. I obviously had my opinions on each of the 4 items listed, but they’ve evolved a bit.

For Item 1, Documentation: Rhino is actually far more capable that I thought. I tested a lot of stuff out since posting this, I watched Mary’s videos, and I was also working on some macro about 6 months ago. I think there are two things causing Rhino to be used less in that department. The first being that it’s hard to find all of the best practices as it relates to creating finished layouts. The second being that Rhino is built in a way that allows such a high degree of freedom; what I mean here is that they give you a set of features to work with, and it’s up to you to figure out your workflow and best practices. The thing is that there simply isn’t a lot of examples of ‘best practices’ for people to start out with. Mary’s video, the ADU Guest House, towards the very end, is the best example I’ve seen so far. Once a person figures out there system, much like AutoCAD, it’s very efficient and definitely faster than Sketchup’s Layout. But ya… there’s nothing to start from and build off of. To me this is easy to fix.

Item 2, Plugin Development: RhinoCommon offers a really good API. I don’t program in Python. I had a bad experience at first in that I actually started learning Iron Python in preparation for learning the Rhino Python API. I don’t know where I found the information that led me in that direction but I found it… As many may or may not know, Iron Python kind of fizzled out. I later decided to pick up C# as it meant I could use it for both AutoCAD and Rhino. When I have the available information, I can program in Rhino’s C# API much better than ACAD’s. I do find that the documentation is somewhat limited. And the example are… perhaps good… but for relative beginners like myself, it’s very hard to learn without thorough documentation. Even with my primitive abilities I’ve actually been able to solve small challenges in Rhino. Accommodated novice programmers a little better could potentially unlock a lot of potential.
Below is a very crude but valid comparison. It’s comparing the relative sizes of McNeel’s developer resources. C#, Python and C/C++ respectively. There simply isn’t a lot of C# stuff, and you actually have to translate from Python to be able to really use the API:

Edit: I should have explained where I’m going to this and how it relates to the original topic. There are quite a lot of plugins for Sketchup. Obviously that’s due to the larger user base. But it’s somewhat of an outlier in that it uses Ruby. Both C# and of course Python are way more common. C/C++ can also be used to Sketchup but this is reserved for more advanced developers.
Maybe with more documentation and tutorials (maybe this could come with R8 as well), developing plugins for Rhino could increase in popularity and maybe snowball into something bigger… maybe but maybe not. And this is not to say that we don’t have extremely talented developers in the community. We just don’t have the bigger collaborative efforts that we’re used to seeing in Sketchup is all.
End of edit.

I don’t really want to mention anything regarding Item 3, it’s been well discussed (and I learnt A LOT from everyone’s posts, thank-you!!). And Item 4 is probably left for an entirely separate topic, so all I will mention is that with R8 around the corner, along with it’s visual styles and rendering capabilities, it would sure be cool to have our own warehouse stocked with stuff to place in our models. I’m going to start uploading stuff to F4R as soon as my stuff sucks a bit less.

[Helvetosaur]

@keithscadservices

As many may or may not know, Iron Python kind of fizzled out.

You can use CPython3 in Rhino 8

[keithscadservices]

So should one learn CPython (which is the most common implementation of Python right?) or IronPython for Rhino?

I grabbed this from the link below, which is also the link that probably led me to start learning IronPython:

Rhino uses Python version 2.7. To be more specific Rhino uses IronPython which brings together the Python language and Microsoft’s .NET framework.

The link (“last updated” within the last two years):

What is Rhino.Python?

My fear was that I’d invest a large amount of time learning something that would become dated and obsolete. I’m also an AutoLISP programmer, so I need to be very careful that I don’t learn TWO languages (or even implementations of a language) that are expected to see less and less use over the years.

[Helvetosaur]

@keithscadservices

So should one learn CPython (which is the most common implementation of Python right?) or IronPython for Rhino?

Well, I think Python 3 is the way forward. That being said, the differences aren’t all that major - it’s not like a whole new language. It is possible to write code that is compatible with both versions. Also, if I understood correctly, IronPython is now on 3.4. However I don’t know if V8 will use that version - I suspect not.

[Juan_Gallo]

are you aware that it is completely possible to have vector output out of viewport? actually it is pretty standard in other sw. edges are just curves fyi.

[mich.platter]

As for AEC, in my country (and im sure many will follow or already did it), it will be mandatory to submit IFC models for buildings. Which kind of makes a BIM package mandatory. Which will probably rule out both Rhino and SU as a single tool for a project (VisualArq is inandequate).

[Eugen]

@Juan_Gallo

are you aware that it is completely possible to have vector output out of viewport?

Ok… how?
I just tested .ai and Rhino-native .pdf format. Indeed they output vectors directly from a viewport, but only “wireframe”, meaning no hidden lines (and no hatches etc), which makes it only useful in a some cases.

[Juan_Gallo]

thats why i refered to other programs rhino cant do that but for instance microstation can. i replied to the guy because i assume he assumes its not possible out of principle

[Eugen]

@Juan_Gallo

thats why i refered to other programs rhino cant do that but for instance microstation can.

Ooooh yes, this is well possible.
Just testing ArchiCAD’s vector export (which became the BIM software of choice in our office) with some demoscene from here:
3D-04 Section - B.pdf (191.1 KB)
3D-01 Ground Floor.pdf (596.6 KB)
A Building Section.pdf (230.6 KB)
1 Car.pdf (121.3 KB)
3D-02 First Floor.pdf (515.0 KB)
3D-06 Perspective Linework garden.pdf (289.9 KB)
3D-07 Perspective Linework - street.pdf (218.2 KB)

ArchiCAD has, among the classic floorplan/section/elevation 2D-views also something called a “3D Document”. Confusing name, because actually it’s a real 2D vector view of the scene, but with the 2d pieces still being selectable representations of the original 3d object.
(created the PDFs by opening such a view, and doing File > SaveAs > PDF)

THAT’s what I call a fine vector engine, and a logical concept of deriving 2d out of 3d!
Ok, there’s still room for improvement. Section lines are missing. Interestingly, intersecting hatch areas work fine. Textured hatches would also be great (Don’t know if anybody else can do this, though).

Sorry for the off topic, but I think it adds to the discussion, because in the end it’s about where Rhino should be heading in the 2d drafting department, right?

[Juan_Gallo]

i have concepts in my head if brought to life that would be state of the art 3d to 2d but my hands are tied. literally i am wearing an orthesis

[ShynnSup]

No. You assumed I assumed it was completely impossible, as if we don’t have that technology yet. I have referred BIM modellers in my replies multiple times, which would tell that I know it is possible. Obviously I was referring purely to Rhino.

[Piotr]

This is fine output, but in theory only.
I have been working in studio where everybody, except me, was using ArchiCAD, therefore I have dealt with ArchiCAD meshes and pdfs very often. These things are meant for one thing only - pdf prints. You can’t take them and use further as there is infinite bunch of crap behind, be it 2d drawing or model. See your example below when ungrouped in Affinity:

This software is targeting the 2d print only.
I have exploded their 2d dwg export and there was over 300 lines overlapped at one place only. Shame.

[Eugen]

I opened those PDFs in Affinity Designer as well, and have to say, they are quite orderly. Definitely good enough to do some postpro work, recoloring, adding/deleting stuff… much nicer than working with pixels.
If you take a hatch area and ungroup it, what did you expect? Makes sense to me that there are lots of hatch lines inside. One could maybe complain that they are not in perspective.

Besides, it’s a cool thing that it can do curved hatches, like this:

test curved hatch.pdf (45.0 KB)

Not too shabby, in my book. Miles ahead from what you can do in Rhino, easily at least.

[keithscadservices]

I explored Eto forms a bit on the weekend as well. They seem really good at first glance. The tutorials, all three of them, fall a little short. For me at least I encounter a similar problem: It’s really not beginner friendly, and more due to the availability of learning resources opposed to the code/logic/etc… actually being hard to learn. In fact, I’ve all but decided to use Eto as my forms of choice while I try and improve my C# skills. It would just go much faster if I had good ‘beginner’ resources.
Some concise examples include the fact that one of the three tutorials is actually missing some of the code. And the sample projects appear to be missing a reference, or I don’t know what I’m doing; likely both are true (I am able to get most “sample” projects to build/run however).
If I compare the resources I had available even for AutoLISP, but also the Sketchup Ruby API (which I obviously don’t use, but appears to be well documented), it’s definitely harder for beginners. C# was kind of like that for AutoCAD too. Information was very spotty. They made it confusing as hell trying to figure out which Framework to use (this was back in the ‘Framework’ days obviously). It looks better now though.
The actual API programming in Rhino however… it’s a dream once you know what you’re doing. I guess my point here is that if they had a smoother landing for novice programmers like myself they might attract more creators.