Yeah, something like that. The visible (resulting) object is something like clipping frame visualisation of dynamic booleaning objects.
yeahâŚ
fwiw- itâs not (if I understand the idea correctly) necessarily a new capability. it just automates some of what is already available in rhinoâŚ
instead of manually exploding, extending, un trimming, moving, rotating, scaling, re trimming, rejoining, etcetcâŚ
all of that would be occurring automatically âŚ
and allows a designer to explore options more rapidly and freely.
2 Likes
less powerful?
have a look at this link: nx direct modeling
(not spaceclaim but siemens nx synchronous technology)
Sure, mesh fusion seems a handy tool for polygon modelers, but I think itâs save to say that modern, history free, direct modeling cad software is infinitely more complex and powerful.
Norbert
Then it raises the question of where (or what objects) should be the control handles of the design attempts and transformations? The interesecting curves maybe (too complex in most cases)?
So, how one should know what is controling which shape, surface or cuts, section, boolean? Sketch based objects and history, like most of the solid modelers?
So if I create a rectangular plane, then it (in the background calculation) has to be treaten as an infinite plane.
Wow, just came into my mind that in such way a solid box could be the âpositive intersectionâ between (at least two parallel to each other) ânegative boxesâ (like multiplication and power works in math)?! Now i think I need to go to sleep (here is 01:00 past midnight allready)
I think it is exactly what he is talking about.
The single manipulations of faces in the video I posted above seem very much like what holo isasking for.
Granted, I donât think he is looking for the complex capabilities shown in the video (that wouldnât be realistic given the pricing of those programs), but simply he looks for improvements when moving/rotating faces.
Norbert
heh, that looks awesome.
seems like a combo of whatâs being talked about here plus some great filleting capabilities.
fwiw, the meshfusion comparison wasnât meant as a poly vs nurbs type of comparison⌠itâs the nondestructive live booleans I was meaning to point out and that idea could be applied to any type of modeler
Would the chamfered sides of the hole extend so that the top diameter of the hole grows larger, or would the hole extend as a cylinder? Either could be the design intent.
yes it is impressive, but it also has an impressive price tag 
Norbert
NX is another universe (a modular program comprised of many specific programs â modules: surfacing, sketching, solider, mesher, renderer⌠what not). Is workflow is absolutely scientific (input data and terminology) for 50% of the command interface windows. I couldnât catch with the NURBS part in its surface modeler so I gave up. Seemed like it always produces meshes or I do not know. It is a very crowded piece of software I even not sratched its surface.
the same thing as if you drew a cone then _Extend it⌠wider coneâŚ
itâs obviously not going to guess a userâs wants to add a cylinder into the mix so if you want the shape to extrude into a cylinder, youâd have to draw it.
right⌠basically, any naked edge would extend until it hits something at which point, itâs trimmed to the intersectionâŚ
(and probably something like â if there isnât an intersection available then it doesnât extend⌠then another 50 or so odd rules to deal with various scenarios 
)
idk, it doesnât seem impossible-- especially since we can do all the required steps ,manually, within current rhino but-
it seems like a big undertaking to get it right⌠all the boolean commands would (probably) be affected or reworked because of it, trimming & joining would change somewhat, the UI and some conventions would be affected, the display would have some changes, etcetcâŚ
ie- itâs not necessarily âadd this to rhinoâ â itâs more âchange the way rhino worksâ⌠on a fundamental basis to some degree.
and if that assumption is anywhere close to correct then the question becomes âis it worth it over other areas that could be worked on using the same resources?â
In short: Yes direct modelling is what I ask for.
A good history with booleans would also be perfect, together with a historymanager, but that is not the topic here.
(And I see how that tool would work int the examples I made. But I am asking for a tool that also lets you move the bottom surface down.)
No. What I am asking for is purely âadd this to Rhinoâ.
And when it is added, with itâs limitations and all, it can evolve into something more fundamental, when both the programmers and the users have the experience with the âlight versionâ and if it seems to be a tool most designers need.
I made a simple script that uses Rhino tools to let me do these kinds of modifications, but it is a hack so it is not intelligent, it doesnât know what surface edges to extend etc and since it uses âmake solidâ then it can return multiple solids after the edit. If I find it Iâll upload it so you can test it out.
When we see something in Rhino?
This is real solid modeling! Something has been done, a small step forward, but still not enough.
I wish that you could do in Rhino 6 modeling like in the video.
2 Likes
@davide76 That does look great!! When you said solid modeling, I was thinking about starting out with a cube, and extruding, booleaning, translating vertices etc. but this is much more interesting.
Would lvoe to see this / T-splines functionality back in Rhino
It would not be impossible to implement these features in Rhino!
The road was started with the command âsolidptonâ, it would be enough work on it.
Developers, take a look ⌠and good luck!
[quote=âHolo, post:32, topic:6823â]
In short: Yes direct modelling is what I ask for.
A good history with booleans would also be perfect, together with a historymanager, but that is not the topic here.
(And I see how that tool would work int the examples I made. But I am asking for a tool that also lets you move the bottom surface down.)[/quote]
iâm pretty sure thereâs just some miscommunication going on with the terminology being used hereâŚ
because once i saw the video of âDirect Modelingâ, in my head, i was like âoh, right- live booleansâ but people are then telling me âno, iâm not talking about live booleans- iâm talking about direct modelingâ 
i guess itâs hard to talk about since the capabilities arenât in rhino so i canât just make a quick video for examples⌠(i could mock one in rhino using ,basically, stop motion but thatâs a 1/2 day project )
there is a feature in rhino which does, on a basic level, show what iâm talking about and i assume, itâs the same thing youâre talking about (and to me, i see it as a live boolean but iâll quit calling it that if itâs adding confusion)
that being⌠_ClippingPlane
draw a box, add a clipping plane, then move the plane around or rotate itâŚ
at a basic level, that is what youâre talking about, right?
except the ânewâ feature would be that the clipping plane isnât just a visual plane⌠it would be an actual surface and it could be any shaped surface at that⌠with all the normal control points and, in many scenarios, itâs edges would Extend out until an intersection happens⌠etc.
1 Like
I think I understand what you mean.
Tools like Max and Cinema4D has had boolean as âhistory featuresâ for ages, and the great thing there is that the object manager controls what is what. And you can boolean two complex parts, and edit them individually at the same time. Powerful stuff for some scenarios!
Iâll look into Modoâs tools, I saw a video once, I think you posted it, but I canât really remember all the details. Edit: Found a link to Mesh Fusion modelling: http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/modo/plugins/meshfusion/
and that is not what I am asking for at all. But it is cool!
Sp to recap, what i am REALLY asking for is âjustâ an update to solid editing, but I guess that is clear 
ha. Iâm convinced I donât know how to talk/explain clearly
but if you donât see those first examples you posted as boolean operations then I donât know what to call it.
when you rotate/move/scale the selected surface, the adjacent surfaces are constantly extending/intersecting/trimming to the position of the transformed surfaceâŚ
this intersecting & trimming is what Iâm referring to as boolean_ing⌠except, in this case, the intersecting&trimming would be happening in real time â ie live boolean.
thatâs the same thing thatâs going on throughout much of the NX video in the thread.
I think what it boils down to is that we would all like more integration of Rhino tools in sub-object manipulations. A lot of what you can do with sub-object selection and the gumball you could have done through previous through Rhino commands. MoveEdge, MoveFaceâŚect. In itâs current state sub-object manipulation is very limiting compared other Rhino tools. For instance you canât rebuild a sub-object surface, you can modify itâs control pointsâŚ
I call them trimmed surfaces. Thatâs what they are. Simply trimmed nurbs. How they became that, through trimming, splitting or by using any of the boolean tools, does not matter for the initial wish.
I guess the big difference is that if you move a boolean object then that entire sub-object will move, with all itâs sub surfaces, so they have to be linked together in some historical way. But moveface, rotateface etc does not need that. So that is why I am kind of sticking to my guns regarding what I call this. I wish for a surface manipulation that is free from any history.
I donât mean to be difficult, so if I still come across as difficult then it is just because I donât know how not to be