I forgot, MOI3D, who knows, maybe this can…
Moi fails. Well, We are mixing the solid, mesh and nurbs software, not to mention the price difference!
I’m not sure that @Hughes_Tooling said that it worked 100% in all cases, just a couple that were tried. I don’t think anything would be able to sweep all of the examples in the file. If GeoMagic is able to handle some of the cases, like @cadmaster just mentioned, talk about a price difference between it and Rhino!
Dear All,
just another, creative way to create this shape.
Using OffsetSrf. See the img for details.
SweepFail.02_RG.zip (1.6 MB)
Don’t know if works for every situation but I think yes.
Ciao!
Skysurfer, the problem is not to be able to resolve this kind of examples, but is to use a command (the sweep) which allows a short time to do what is required. Of alternative paths if they can find different, all right and perfect, but we would like Rhino did things without losing too much unnecessary time.
After 5 versions of Rhino, almost 6; After many years of development, we ask the impossible?
The speech of the price of a CAD seems to me unreasonable. In this context, Moi3D, which costs less than half of Rhino, then it should not be used to anything? Many software cost a lot because they have inside various tools dedicated to many sectors, see CATIA for example, more are parametric.
When Rhino has some gaps, then I often say: of course, it costs a little money!
What an idiot! 
Imagine if they sold Rhino 6 at the modest sum of 6000 Euros, what would be able to do, even the coffee? (The last fillet work properly!)
In fact with this my method you can work on thousands obj at once, that’s not bad.
You can script it or create a macro by yourself.
It’s good to push mcneel improve our lovely software but there’s also the need to prioritize.
Some feature are about the core, others are just workaround.
Different solution can drive to a better tool.
How can taking the price of particular CAD software into account be unreasonable? Much can be done in MoI3D, I’ve used it myself, it’s great for the price. But it lacks many, many features that Rhino has; a huge number of modeling tools, material textures, rendering, dimensioning, 2D layouts, Grasshopper, expansion through plug-ins, product support, learning tools, extensive documentation, just to name a few. It makes sense that Rhino will indeed cost more than MoI. This can be interpolated out to a product like GeoMagic Freeform Plus that has features and tools that Rhino doesn’t. It can do some really cool things and it does so with a really large price tag.
Priority or not, so many things in Rhino were incomplete or not solute during the different versions. By Rhino 4 to Rhino 5 sate many things are correct, but many were left by the wayside. A sweep should work in most cases possible. If something does not work you should work on it and solve the shortage. Do not think that this is also a priority not to be neglected?
In Rhino, I think that there is no other that fill commands, tools, and options excessive, abundant, and often overlook how important commands sweep, loft, blend srf, patch, srf network, match, ect, at the base of a surface modeler free form.
I thought the command sweep in Rhino was almost infallible, but … (slight disappointment).
Hi
Just had a buddy of mine try these examples with NX9.0. He tried them with Swept and Sweep along guide and they all failed.
Ultimately I don’t understand what the big deal is. There are several easy work arounds for this within Rhino.
2 Likes
I think its ridiculous to say things like hundreds of years ago craftsmen were able to construct complex “sweeps” but in the 21st century various CAD software fails to achieve the same result.
It’s not like craftsmen were sitting around on their candle powered computers doing all this - they were spending years covered in muck chiseling and hacking away at stone.
As numerous people have pointed out, there are many ways of successfully modelling these kind of objects - so what if they don’t work in the actual idealised theoretical magic sweep formula that is thought so important?
In my opinion it’s not a failure of the software - its a classic case of the problem lying between the head and the keyboard.
Just saying…
Cheers
rabbit
4 Likes
I think its also a case again of rhino having way too many tools, i think i use about 20 - 30 tools tops (thats with vsr included)
There are functions in there that i dont even know exist.
I really think rhino needs to focus on the getting the basics right, simply nailing software issues like this where others cant will imo really make a difference.
like 2 other functions that really need to be more solid, sometimes i have to send a file to a friend just to ask them “can you offset this for me” or "can you fillet this for me"
Same with blend, you still cant have the edges aligned (you have to guess manually) (btw, fillets should have an edge align function also)
man i can go on and on,…
And that’s fine. But those are likely to be used all the time by some other user. If McNeel were to write a program specifically for your needs only, yes, it would most likely look different than what it is. But they don’t.
Instead of sending off your files to a friend (with other software, I presume), you could help development of Rhino by sending them here or to support directly. It’s not as if the ‘basics’ are written in stone somewhere and all a developer has to do is check the lines of code against those cases…
3 Likes
There are so many valid and successful ways to model this unlikely real detail in Rhino, I just do not know what the fuss is about. Rhino is one of the most versatile toolsets ever - end of story. If one tool doesn’t quite fit the purpose, use a different one. An ancient craftsmen wouldn’t have approached this as one swept rail. And it is very unlikely that he would have made such a detail from one piece of stone. I think what you are really saying, is that if I took the simplest approach to modelling this complex geometry, it doesn’t work. No surprises there. It’s complex geometry. There are good simple approaches, but the simplest approach fails. An ancient craftsmen would not have taken a profiling tool and tried to manufacture this detail by sweeping it along a rail. He would have used many different tools, in many different ways. He would have probably even turned round to the master craftsmen or architect and said: “I don’t think this detail is fully resolved”. He wouldn’t have blamed his tools. Isn’t there an old saying: “A good craftsmen never blames his tools”? I agree with Rabbit.
1 Like
Sorry this is OT but this statement just drives me nuts whenever I hear it.
Perhaps this was true up until they put people with no understanding of the work in charge of finances and management. Thus is possible to need a tool for the job that is not provided. The job is budgeted for a certain amount of time and when the time is exceeded the worker is blamed. In truth, the worker can say he did not have the right tool for the job.
So perhaps it is now better to say, “A good craftsman never blames his tools, he makes management accountable.”
This detail is easily modelled in Rhino with other tools. The tool within Rhino that has been selected for the task is the wrong tool. There is a very simple generalised rule for this kind of tool selection appraisal. If the offset curve tool does not work without the resulting geometry breaking apart, the sweep one rail tool will not work either. If the job is budgetted for a certain amount of time, the knowlegeable worker ought to have been consulted by the often unknowing management on how long it would take him. It is up to the worker, skilled with his tools, to advise management about realistic expectations. Whilst this geometry appears simple in principle, it is not. That’s why the simplest tools can’t process the geometry and other less simple (but not complex) tools within the toolset are necessary. How can management be held accountable if they asked the skilled worker “how long will this exercise take”?
Clearly, when they do not ask, or do not care, or can’t take the time to evaluate any response or suggestion from an employee.
1 Like
With respect, I really do not think this has anything to do with this original post.