Technical view mode misses many lines

Did I miss a setting or are there any plans to improve the technical view mode?

Here’s how a part looks like in a different drawing mode:

And here’s how it looks in technical, with hidden lines removed:

Obviously a lot of things missing, but I don’t get why parts of the grille is missing.

File in case anyone wants to take a look… 1.stp (742.5 KB)

Is there a way to get 1-bit shadows from the technical view mode, to bring back at least some shapes?

Hello - On its own, this looks fine in Technical/Pen etc. But these modes use the render meshes - it may pay to set a custom render mesh on this object.

-Pascal

hi Pascal, not when you only display the silhouettes+creases. Somehow, no matter what mesh settings you use, the silhouette is failing to give a continuous outline / creases:

However, meshing the object with mesh2 in v7 gives a much cleaner result. Would be nice if we could use this mesher for (custom) render mesh setting too.

1 Like

Hoi Gijs - we don’t know yet if Mesh2 will make it into Rhino 7. If it doesn’t get completely done in time, it will be moved to Rhino 8.
-wim

Sorry, where can I read about Mesh2? Will this fix the “singularities” that the current tesselator produces?

Hi -

There’s nothing to read about Mesh2 at this point.

Who knows.
-wim

This sounds like Rhino7 is almost done? That would mean Rhino 6 will have a shorter lifespan than we were used to, compared to earlier versions. I would welcome that, given it comes with improvements and features that justifiy a new version. So far it looks like Rhino7 just fixes stuff that wasn’t working in 6 or implements features in a better way. Nothing major that would justify a new version. The only bigger jump I see is GH2.

Is RH7 really that close?

It should sound like there’s a lot of work to be done to get Mesh2 ready.
RH7 will be ready when it’s ready. But Mesh2 is not on the list of things that will stop it…
-wim

As for that one, Robert, you should probably look into using QuadRemesh in Rhino 7.
-wim

Sticking to preset timelines never works out anyway and people get disappointed. In that regard “It’s done when it’s done” is fine.

We would like to think that there are a few major new things in this list:


-wim

Maybe from a developer’s perspective. Not so much from a user’s perspective.
I would have assumed you would finally rethink and redo Rhino’s UI from the ground up. Hard to believe this isn’t on the list and that we might have to live with this for many more years.

This feature alone is worth the money for us when Rhino 7 is production ready:

So, user perspectives may differ also. :wink:

1 Like

I see the same problem as @eobet using layout to create a direct 2d paper from the 3D model.
Also, using V7, I found some wierd result using clipping plane (it doesn’t use the selected color to fill the section)

So it would be very helpfull if we can use and test the mesh2 option.

The part in that screenshot was a 8m long fully detailed fiberglass deck. I tried the QuadRemesher, and even at 200 000 faces, the detail was horrible (over several centimeters of difference), so no, I don’t think that’s the right tool for that job. :smiley:

You can get millimeter accuracy using the same polygon count with the regular options (and if the “faces” reported from the quadremesher is actually quads, then the regular tesselation does a much better job at half the count)!

But ok, sorry for the off-topic. I was just curious about the future meshing options of Rhino.

(And another slight off-topic, I just discovered the “freestyle” options in Blender, which seem similar to the Technical view mode in Rhino, but produce much, much better results, and can even be exported to SVG.)

I don’t think this is a fair statement. There is actually quite a large list of improvements and new features. Most other software companies just charge you each year for a new version even if there are no new features added. Personally I would welcome a release of Rhino 7 and support McNeel for the great work that goes into Rhino and their (forum) support. Quicker release of a new version would theoretically mean they will generate more income to attract extra development power. I do hope though that eventually nasty (long standing) bugs get squashed and that these get higher priority than adding new features.

3 Likes

Yes, true.

Fusion 360 for example seems to grow a lot more in terms of features, the company is probably much bigger though. But yes, only because I’m personally missing some features on this list, this does not necessarily mean that a new version isn’t justified. Like I had mentioned, I do welcome a quicker release schedule compared to what we were used to until rhino 6.

Rhino’s price:
Since it is really low compared to what it offers, there isn’t much room to complain.

More developers:
Yes, I have the feeling they really could need some more help. On the one hand I can understand that the McNeelTeam wants to stay something like a tight family, on the other hand when you add features like cycles, it is not fair to have only one developer in charge of this. I have the feeling this is just too much work for one dev. So yes, mo money mo devs would be great.

Because I mentioned UI:
Looking at grasshopper’s UI, I don’t think they need to search for new devs in that regard. I hope the future of rhino’s UI will learn from grasshopper.

Coming back to the actual topic of this thread, technical view mode:
I’d whish for more direct/quicker controls to change the appearance of technical and other view modes. This ties a bit into this thread.
Since Mesh2 looks to be a big deal, I hope they’ll manage to include it in RH7.

1 Like

could we test it even if it’s not ready?

I think it would be nice, thinking that RH7 is in development stage, also try this “new” feature could help to understand if it’s an helpfull feature or not

I don’t understand what’s stopping you?

That sounds like something that should be looked into - please start a new thread and attach a file.
-wim

using the layout to show our 3D model we get the same weird result as @eobet mentioned, so I would like to understand if using mesh2 option can solve the problem.

ok, I made a new thread :slight_smile: