hello people! this time im having difficulties with surfacing hull. my question is: what softwares are currently used for sailboat design? ive been using plenty but none give me the desired shape… if you look at some hull design for example from royal huisman’s they look PERFECTTT… ive been sending some mails to lots of naval architects but none reply so i ask you users. any idea??? from my point of view every design or architectural studio has its own unique methods for accurate design… anyways i upload the file for you to check out.
my problem is that i want to remove a cusp located at the corner of bow. the corner is generating some concave effect that makes my model look very poor…
I’ll take a look at it! FWIW - I’m actually working on a video on the match command right now. I actually think Rhino’s MatchSrf is quite excellent, if you know how to use it. It is lacking numerical feedback - there’s no way to know if you are hitting your matching target, but other than that it’s quite good. I typically use the Rhino MatchSrf for all my work, and check it with the VSR Global Matching Analysis.
Here’s the classic Class-A type approach to the problem. I’ve simplified it a bit but you should get a good idea of the right patch layout to make it work. It’s just two surfaces, one small trim and three little blend surfaces.
I found a few areas that were a bit off, so I played with the “Move UVN” tool to achieve almost true G2 continuity.
In my opinion, “Move UVN” is simultaneously the most powerful and most underrated tool in Rhino. Drag strength of the Gumball set to a single digit number is also a very nice tool to use on surface control points while the Zebra analysis is active.
Things would be much easier and faster with a static light lines analysis, but I guess we have to wait for Rhino 7 to implement them…
I used similar approach to create the rounded edge on the roof of the Aeromaster LMP in Rhino 3. It’s by far the best technique to avoid placing multiple control points in the same area that may result in crashes, bad objects or unexpected behaviour of some surfacing tools.
Yeah I hear ya…but honestly it’s so much LESS useful than the VSR Shape Control Point Modeling - both in terms of UI and functionality, that I just can’t bring myself to use MoveUVN (or upgrade to 6 for that matter). It seems like you used Shape in the past and that you’re interested in surfacing - can I ask why not just go back to 5/VSR for surfacing? Just curious as to what you feel like you’re getting from 6 from a surfacing perspective?
I used to work with Rhino 5 and VRS for a while in a company about a decade ago, but now that I want to be a freelancer I can’t afford to simultaneously buy Rhino 5, VSR and Rhino 6/7. For the moment I use Rhino 6 evaluation, but obviously I don’t have access to Rhino 7 WIP. However, I read that there are plenty of nice improvements in Rhino 7 over Rhino 6, so I just wait for Rhino 7 to be released on the market to buy it without having to upgrade from 6.
If I recall properly, “Control point modeling” in VSR combined both “Move UVN” and “Adjust end bulge” into a single tool.
I don’t know if I agree. It has a different approach and surely the VSR control point modeling is much more intuitive to get into.
But there are things that you can do with UVN that you cannot with VSR (numerical input, multiple points selection…) and vice versa (e.g. falloffs)
I tend to be on @Rhino_Bulgaria s side on this: one of the most useful and at the same time underrated tools.
As far as I remember, there was some weird limitation of VSR that didn’t allowed to select two or more points simultaneously. It was only possible to select a single point or the full row of control points related to it. It was super disturbing and this is why I rarely used it as I found “Move UVN” to be more versatile for adjusting a custom number of control points simultaneously. I think that the aforementioned shortcoming of VSR was related to “Control point modeling”, but I may be wrong.
Vsr control point modeling has those limitations in selecting, because you don’t select anything but you just hover over a point and the translations are applied bei click-dragging and according to a combination of selection filters (single point, row, all) direction filters (x, y, z, tangent, normal) and falloffs and strength factor.
This is a limitation, but also a feature as it is much more intuitive and immediate than selecting a point and then applying a translation.
Another importando limitation is no numeric input (and here move uvn is totally complementary)
Both commands have their strengths and weaknesses. I keep using them both depending on what I want to achieve.
But then again I am using Rhino 5, 6 and 7 contemporary and keep copying and pasting between them…
If either of you do any screen capture, I’d love to see a vid posted of how you actually use MoveUVN - especially Norbert, if you feel like sharing concrete cases of “here’s where I think MoveUVN works better” or “Here’s where I think Shape works better.”
I understand the frustration with no being able to select multiple verts with Shape, but for me I tend to work with very low point count surfaces whenever possible and so I never feel like it’s much of a limitation. The VAST majority of my verts are set by MatchSrf, and so the number I actually want to play with is usually less than five in any given surface. Also, as you pointed out, the falloff selection is very nice in VSR. But, like I said I’d be interested in seeing concrete situations where you Norbert are reaching for MoveUVN over Shape Control Point Modeling.
I’m not @norbert_geelen, but if you look at the 3dm model that I uploaded last night (i.e. your boat hull model, but with some additional tweaks done by me), you will notice that the “Move UVN” tool actually has some nice capabilities.
Also, by looking at the following screenshot of a car modeled with VSR, I can clearly see where “Move UVN” could help you achieve better continuity.