First of all I would like to point that I come from architecture, and these are the problems that I thought Rhino could handle, and the reason because I changed.
Vector output: I thought that Rhino was a combination of AutoCAD and a boosted Sketchup, which at a certain point it is, but one thing that I didn’t like was the vector output.
Aside from wireframe as far as the print width that you set on layers doesn´t do anything related to lineweight, which is a very frustrating. I really would like to set up lineweight as you do in ArchiCAD or Revit, which reflect in 3d Model, not using Make2d, I don´t konw but I think Make2d is a workaround that I try to not to use, the advantage to use a 3d modelling software is that you could extract 3d views from model making the views in sync with the model, if you need to update, those changes apply to views, very simple.
As other users mentions Rhino should have a hatch material associated to geometry but you should be able to make a surface o 3d geometry. In architecture we use hatch for representing materials. It would be nice if those hatch were vectors too, again, as Archicad does. Just like Section Tools does it when you cut the geometry, but in this case in geometry that is not cutted or sectioned.
I mention Archicad and Revit as a good examples of good 3d modeling and vector management for the problems I think Rhino has and someone could reply me that I should use those software instead but Rhino has many advantages that I thing could make a good overall tool, if Rhino keep upgrading could be the main and maybe only tool for architect, at least for smaller projects, has so much more freedom for designing instead of BIM software, and has the potential to be a AutoCAD and Sketchup. But these at least are the things that a student architect requires, vector output for any display mode associated to layers print width and vector material hatch for elevation views.
Please attach a small model to show is the issue. Also open Rhino and type the command SystemInfo. Copy and paste your results into the reply.
Currently there is an open issue with Section Styles not using the PrintWidth of the layer.
You can have a Section Style associated with the Object can be assigned by in these ways:
Layer, By Parent (block insertion layer), or by Clipping Plane.
Rhino is a general-purpose, direct modeling software and different to parametric CAD. It will not persist your modeling actions, acting clever on changes. However it gives you more freedom in modeling and its therefore very strong in creating freeform shapes. This distinction is very important when to decide which CAD fits your needs.
Its is also strong with automation/scripting, but it won’t replace a specialized CAD like Revit or Archicad in terms of BIM or architectural tooling. Although used by many architects nowadays, it won’t replace specialized CAD. Rather it complements to other CAD. Note that the majority of all Rhino user are not architects, even if architects are the biggest group of them. At least when we talk about professionals.
thanks for the reply, I don’t any file because I’m kinda making a wishlist for newer versions.
About the section style I alredy knew that was possible to have hatch in Section geometry but isn’t as far as I know (maybe I just don’t know the option) in elevation geometry, in other words, geometry that isn’t cut. Here is when “hatch material” could be a thing, making possible to associate a hatch with a surface that isn’t cut, changing the pattern scale, rotation, etc.
And related to vector output, I mean, the display mode actually exports as vector pdf but the problem is that if you have a layer with, let’s say 0.3 mm widthprint, that widthprint doesn’t match the pdf exported, insted is associated to the widthprint set on Display Mode options in Objects>Lines section, which to me is a bit dissapointing. Why doesn’t just follow the layers widthprint? I mean, it’s great that you could change overall setting with Display Mode changing the lineweight of every object, silhoutte, hidden line all at once if you want, but to me seems a bit obvious to follow the layer widthprint first.
I don’t know if is too hard to fix or make that option possible, making 3d geometry follow the widthprint layer.
Sorry if I did sound a little unpolite with the post, wasn’t my intetion, thanks again for replying.
yeah, it’s possible, but I don’t know, to me seems “simple” to make these changes and could make Rhino even better than already is. Idk the implications of making these options available, maybe it isn’t that easy.
There are two things. Indeed adding new features might be easy from the functional perspective, but doing it in a commercial product is always a lot more involving. The only people who can estimate the complexity are the Rhino developers. People who do not develop commercial software applications might totally underestimate the work involved, even people who are able to code.
But the other point is if it makes sense to transition Rhino into something it was not designed for. A lot of feature requests are naturally coming from the architectural domain. See these features are making total sense from your perspective, but have zero importance in other professions. It starts with little things like those, but then people requesting more and more features to convert it into an architectural modelling software. I see this critical in that sense, that this distracts the rather small development team from addressing more serious things. But if the plan is to make Rhino an architectural tool, then your chances are high that Rhino will improve. For outsiders like us, its really hard to see the overall goal. I guess in the end its all about selling as much licenses as possible.
Hi Fernando,
I am on the structural side of your argument, but we approached with a different viewpoint -
I saw that Revit was really limited in dealing with complicated geometries, and we can achieve much faster and cleaner results using Rhino and grasshopper.
I see this as a multi-software problem.
Rhino is good at modeling
Revit is good at documentation (kind of)
Have you thought about trying to use things like the rhino.inside.revit plugin and move your geometries across to revit for documentation?
That is how we handle it, and it works well, also for specifically architects, the Proving Ground apps are really useful and I would recommend you check them out and see if the Rhino to Revit workflow might solve some of your documentation issues.
Honestly, I didn’t test it yet, but I should, I’ll test with Archicad which is the software that I use for BIM and indeed has the options that I’m requesting, thank you for the suggestion!
Yes, to be honest these features are very architecture oriented and very specific also, as I commented to other user I’ll test the plugin integration with Archicad which is a architecture specific software. Even so, don’t you think these features would be helpful for others designers, as industrial for example? at least to me, lineweight is very much needed but I’m not speaking from any experience on that field. Thanks for the answer!
