Or even a “Match blend numeric value” option that would allow you to pick an existing blend.
Yes, please!
This would be a huge improvement in workflow.
I didn’t want to sound to “greedy”, that’s why I didn’t ask for this…
It has already been pointed out (somewhere) in this thread that the reason for why there’s “not more surface modelers” using Rhino than (presumed) at present, (who actually knows how many?), is not because user’s don’t want them, instead it can also be that the number decreases due to the request over the years for the most critical surfacing tools (better matching, point editing, filleting, cornering etc) has not been delivered.
Although I’m not a professional modeler myself I would definitely appreciate exactly the surfacing tools being suggested in this thread, even for my non-professional models. Doing “good modelling” is not only a requirement for all modelers, doing it well is also part of the satisfaction of doing modeling, irrespective of the actual surface quality requirements.
There’s more to it than only the actual requirements. I’m old enough to think in terms of “professional pride”, which is a contagious ailment. Always trying to improve. And being able to do a good job, even better than expected, is simply a significant part of the fun itself.
Point being that enhanced surface tools would definitely encourage me to keep updating my Rhino in the future. Which is, I presume, what matters to McNeel as well…
// Rolf
BTW, I was too late to the VSR party. I have regretted that ever since.
8 Likes
NOT EDIBLE
As they say in the area in which @Philip lives: When a fisherman at the town’s market place was asked why the fish wasn’t fresh, the fisherman replied: “The fish isn’t supposed to be eaten, it’s supposed to be sold!”
// Rolf
Eric Cantona is in the house! 
Saying my arguments are invalid because you believe I don‘t understand class A modeling, does not counter my arguments. It is rather a very bad argumentation to prove your points to be right.
But if it qualifies my points for you: I have done final surfacing on a couple of cars. In order to do CAD automation, I had to learn traditional „Strak“ and participated on modeling them manually using ICEM Surf, but I was never meant to work as a class A specialist. By the way, this was something my colleagues refused to do. They saw in this kind of work something below their education. Kind of the same arrogance, class A specialist have about their profession, when they claim only specialist of this profession can make a point.
I have coded own Bezier surfacing tools, and I do work as a Software Engineer. And with this background I can only laugh if people claim making a software like Rhino being another Alias is something of creating only a couple more extra tools or even that Rhino is „substandard“.
The point of making software is to solve problems. Its not about solving the same problems in another GUI. Apart from the pricetag, I see no reason why people cannot use Alias and Rhino for slightly different tasks. There is no point to copy functionality. But, as I always clearly said,
still surface tools need to become better in Rhino. Ambiguous yes, but sorry there is no clear true and false.
9 Likes
I do think there is a need to copy functionality. Otherwise we would only have one style of car, boat , stroller, etc. Competition brings pricing to an honest level and so much more.
If Rhino wants to roam the Serengeti without being eaten, it needs to grow.—-Mark
Rhino just has a lot of room to improve surface-quality control and controlpoint modelling as a hole-
it should not become a Class A Modeller or try to become as good as Alias or Icem Surf (or VSR or Kajto)-
but it really needs to improve in these (core modelling) fields, just to give their users the control to do a decent job and produce usable, reusable and changable models.
The geometry should be clean enough that the modeller himself or a coworker would be able to continue or take over the model without having to rebuild it…
therefore a minimum amount of surfacepoints (single span whenever possible) should be used
(only as much detail/points as needed to build the shape, not 1 point more then necessary)
and a decent control of surface parametrisation should be provided by rhino…
then rhino would already be a much better Tool for everybody.
10 Likes
You really hit the nail on the head for me - what we are hoping McNeel will do is something that will improve the surfacing tools for EVERYONE, not simply those that want to do Class A or automotive work. The core tools need updating, and the users who will benefit from this are far far greater than the userbase of Alias or ICEM - it’s anyone who wants to make quality surface models, regardless of industry.
13 Likes
-
Why VSR? It contains every instrument required to construct a Class-A surface. Why Class-A? If Class-A surfacing tools aren’t the aim, then what is it? What is the framework for Rhinoceros 3D development? Where would you begin? I stated that VSR is used for Class-A surface modeling, which is entirely accurate. They built and enhanced the precise tools that Rhinoceros needed. Autodesk recognized it early on and handled it “properly” to ensure Alias’ longevity and to prevent the loss of existing customers. VSR users may dislike the current state of Rhinoceros, but McNeel can completely alter the circumstances. That’s what I had been hoping for.
-
Class-A modeling alone encompasses the aforementioned topics, which I do not feel play a significant role for McNeel due to their repetition and ease of reference.
-
Rhinoceros 3D has developed Sub-D, which I feel to be operationally and potentially superior to T-splines, and GH is also a bomb. Rhinoceros 3D just needs a comprehensive framework for its capabilities.
-
Several years ago, I advocated VSR development, but I insisted that Sub-D should come first because McNeel’s business growth is of utmost importance. Why? Sometimes, users should sacrifice their egos for the greater good. More business expansion (the adoption of Sub-D) would contribute to future growth, such as VSR implementation. At least, that is what I believed at the time, and when I considered it again, I still believe it was the correct decision.
Regardless of your opinion, VSR-like will be the next significant step for the McNeel team.
3 Likes
totaly agree with your opinion!
Four years ago in Padova (rhino day meeting) I’ve the opportunity to meet and discuss with Robert Mc Neel in person, I use rhino since the beta 0 version many many years ago…, and in that occasion I have declair the utility of implementation in surfacing tool for Rhino as VRS tools (not all of them, but the basic improvement of that tool); I’ve the sensation that Robert have the clear importance of that direction (and I hope that with Rinoceros timeline of develop this tools will be integrated) but at the same time (as a business man) he’ve already defined a long time strategy for the future step of growing process of rhinoceros:
_capitalize the dominance of tandem rhino-grasshopper on the market
_fix some tools that can actract lots of users (architectural one)
_introducing and improvement of sud-D (the ex T-spline plugin functions)
_(increase/upgrade sourfacing tools)
it’s only a time problem for same point of view…
the problem is that the more time is passing the more users change their preference and the gap between the competitor software become wider…
2 Likes
Just a glimpse what was possible in Alias back in 2011 (11 years ago):
Notice the awesome convenient way of selecting control points across the surface (and even adjacent surfaces!) via those tiny arrow handles. This is just one of the several types of control point modeling in Alias.
And here is my proposal for the new Control point modeling tool to be added in Rhino 7 SR21 
:
(same image but in PNG format with losless quality)
Rhino 7 SR21 Control point modeling.rar (1.2 MB)
11 Likes
Hence the starting of this thread.
Hi,
I really like your proposal of match surf. I would like to add a few more features, like I said previously, X , Y, Z projection, and something that I think sometimes may be interesting to have, is G3 continuity.
I wonder why in blend surface is available (even G4,which I never used…) whereas in match surface or curve is not.
5 Likes
… another Rhinoceros 3D concept… What does Rhinoceros emphasize? It is applicable to a variety of
areas, including industrial, architectural, and jewelry design, among others. In comparison to AutoCAD/Revit/ArchiCAD, etc., what is Rhinoceros 3D’s advantage or focal point when it comes to producing, transferring, and executing CAD drawing sets? Or is it sub-D modeling like in Blender (or another program)? or rapid boxy architectural modeling like Sketch-Up? which has been adopted in the architectural field as most firms produce boxy buildings during design development phases. Rhinoceros 3D is a “one-size-fits-all” software, which is its beauty and a quality that other software cannot provide. As the development progresses, I believe there should be a clear focus.
A lack of concentration will prevent the expansion. Consider why 2D architectural drawing communication is dominated by AutoCAD. It has become indispensable to the CAD industry. Due to communication demand, companies are compelled to adopt it even if they don’t want to, allowing Autodesk to sell the product at a premium price. Therefore, Rhinoceros 3D should initially concentrate on one area, which is entirely dependent on the user market. If this is the case, I do not believe that VSR/Alias/ICEM?/CATIA should be a top priority until the user market has been carefully analyzed.
If the market indicates a different direction, VSR-like tools shouldn’t be a priority. Given GH’s progress, I believe the market to be large. I can envision that Rhinoceros 3D may be its own ecosystem, touching on every field, including scientific experimentation, which I will do as my research project progresses. As Rhinoceros 3D expands, the McNeel team should prioritize and excel in the easiest area. The “easiest” development doesn’t mean there’s no market growth.
“No problems can be solved with the same level of consciousness.” —A.E
1 Like
I agree with what you said. But it’s about putting more focus on a handful of tools (blend, match, better surface editing), we’re not talking about revolutionizing all software from top to bottom.
After almost 8 versions it is unthinkable that a tool like the blend surface should remain more or less the same as that of the first versions; it is not enough to add an option or do a facade work.
A comprehensive tool similar to VSR would be desirable.
What is missing is that extra something that makes Rhino a more refined and professional software than a “toy” for modeling. So many useful tools really remain in the Stone Age.
2 Likes
Totally agree- I dont see a reason why rhino shouldn´t improve/add precision and more options to their existing Tools?! It´s a no brainer, Its actually what you would expect from them.
And again- McNeel should not try to achieve Class A modelling tools… not at all- but improving the precision(control) and usablity of a handful of tools, which they basically aready have, should not be to much to ask!
I Think VSR Tools only showed/proved that it is possible to achieve that quality inside Rhino, and showed that a decent Live Tools interaction can be done.
I would call it inspireing…
3 Likes
My Posted since 2018
1 Like
move and play with the points in a global way as in the video, this is what I find most lacking in rhino to modify the points of a surface or a curve. just one example among others.
if you have a surface of degree 5, and you want to inflate the middle of the surface or lift an edge of the surface for example.
there are no real commands for this task in rhino. (we have to go down in degrees before going up again, it’s far from being a good solution, it often destroys the shape of the surface.
_softeditsrf and _cageedit are not really the right tools to perform this kind of task, difficult to predict and analyze the result before leaving the controls. certainly they are effective for other situations, but not to modify the structure of the points.
I hope that tools for this kind of task will see the light one day.
why not in rhino8, hope.
2 Likes