SubD discussion

Fabulous! Thanks John.

Steve

As long as you remember you still would own a single concurrent use license. Upgrading a single license from V5 to V6 does not result in 2 licenses that can be run on different computers simultaneously, but we would have no issue with have both your upgraded V5 and V6 on the same system.

1 Like

Got it John. I only have two arms :wink:

guys/developers
where can i test the subD tools
i would love to see the workflow with grasshopper in mesh BASE shapes!!
thnx

what the hell? why would a company like Autodesk shut down one of the most essential modelling plug ins ever created?

Because they implemented it in their own software Fusion 360…

what a disgusting company,

2 Likes

McNeel is too small to develop new geometric modeling kernel. It will remain small because it wants to remain employee-owned company. All we can expect from McNeel is nice user interface and good technical support. The best way to solve this problem is new anti-trust legislation - businesses developing geometric modeling kernels (Parasolid, ACIS, T-Splines, etc.) and computer operating systems (Windows, macOS, etc.) should not be allowed to make other kinds of software. In other words, Autodesk and Microsoft are monopolies and they should be broken up.

1 Like

Hey Jorgen,
We’re looking to do exactly this for V6 (make SubDFromMesh a test command and leave it in the product.) That’s pretty much all you’ll get for V6 though as SubD will be a major focus for V7 development.

Your pleas have not gone unheard :slight_smile: Have a nice weekend

10 Likes

This is one of the reasons I like Rhino so much.

1 Like

Now that’s certainly good news for V6!
…and thanks for not letting me know until now because if you had told me three weeks ago I would never have taken the time nor had the motivation to fight through the process of making a mesh sub-d version for V5… :wink: That knowledge will surely benefit in refining the mesh tools I already have made.

3 Likes

Ok, I have read everything twice and I am still confused. Are we all getting a free cup of coffee with v6 or not?

Hey, thanks, will this ship with all new licenses or will it be sent with updates only?

3 Likes

Mhmm - V7. I will sadly be a retired person in 5-7 years, when V7 will roll out :slight_smile: Just joking. I know you do your best and will be coming up with the best solution, when it’s ready and tested. Still I’m sad it will take some more time :confused: Best Klaus

Can was it is necessary to make a plug-in of Sub-D and to develop it as GH - is so more convenient. And then users of Rhino 5 could use him! :wink:

I don’t agree. While I have no problem with having Sub-D as components in GH in the future, it is not a substitute for having the functions directly in the Rhino interface without having to go through GH - which is a programming interface, not a modeling UI.

–Mitch

5 Likes

I don’t suggest to build Sub-D in GH :wink:
For example PanelingTools - has established and has received the additional Sub-D toolbar.

True statement, however some of us are currently using GH to model. With a level of power and flexibility we have never sense in a history free or linear parametric interface. Different people use and abuse tools however they see fit.

So yeah, we want that SubD components ASAP. thanks!

G

1 Like

In Rhino of 95% - the NURBS tools.
Sub-D - a separate branch, GH - a separate branch :wink:

My personal opinion, I would like to see everything native - not just Sub-D - no switching or loading anything else. That way I load my file and go. However, I could see a possibility of this becoming a juggernaut that would be perhaps less likely to be as small of footprint and again, perhaps tax memory, create issues that take more time to fix…and such. That stated, if implemented as a native function and not a plugin, but behaving as a plugin, the memory space [and such] could be loaded and unloaded as required not requiring user loading and such. Just theorizing since I am not the developer and control nothing in the end game. That stated, I am happy, not thrilled, but very happy with things as they are and where they are headed. I can’t really argue, I can wish, but from someone else’s perspective I might change my mind about that too. But would not creating modules that are natively loaded from a folder result in faster updates, fixes, features…without the additional module/interface loading and files? I may be way off base, but that’s the way I see it. I would like to see all the posted plugins registered and their commands/buttons available simply by placing them in a folder. That does not mean loaded, but staged if the command is called. Maybe I’m just dreaming.