I want to cut the top edge of this polysurface into a soft shape, but the ‘fillet edge’ command doesn’t do it. Any tricks?? After converting to mesh, the ‘to subd’ command gets too many wrinkles. I also upload an example image of the result I want.
Have you tried the “Quad remesh” tool with the “Convert to SubD” option? 
I suggest to delete the bottom faces prior that, in order to preserve a flat bottom after the conversion.
After some manual adjustment of the control points and adding key new edges it could look pretty close to the original. However, this involves lots of time.
NURBS to SubD Bobi.3dm (264.1 KB)
What you try to achieve is nearly impossible with most CAD programs, because even the most powerful ones that take advantage of the Parasolid kernel are good with G1 radius fillets, but often fail miserably with G2 blend fillets.
Perhaps the “Melt” tool for Rhino 12 will do the job perfectly fine. Sadly, it’s not invented yet.
3 Likes
I here there is a tool being thought of that is like sandpaper.
in subd this would be a classic “paperdoll” type model… make the flat shapes and extrude them down to build form- it will give you the softness you are looking for very easily, and if you keep the face count down (rule of three) you will have a beautiful easy to edit model.
need prints? shrinkwrap the whole shebang and you are good to go-
see this video-
rule of three-
shrinkwrap-
more shrinkwrap
even more shrinkwrap (end of the video)
3 Likes
it’s good. thx bro.
oh. nice
1 Like
A major problem of the ! _QuadRemesh tool is that it shrinks the output SubD quite a lot, thus it no longer follows the intended shape and size. The reason is that it aims to snap the control points of the output SubD to the input geometry, which causes the shrinkage after the smoothing operation.
My proposal is to add an option to follow the input geometry by snapping the mid point of the SubD edges instead. However, one important exception should be made for the areas where the angle between the input faces is below a set value (default should be something like 50 degrees). That will allow replicating of shapes like water drop properly, ignoring the sharp corner at the top.
The 50-degrees angle threshold should prevent unnecessary bulging of objects that have a 45-degree chamfer (like most mechanical part designs). Of course, the user must be able to set any custom angle threshold in case that the default 40 degrees are not enough.
Manually optimized SubD to follow the target NURBS shape as close as possible. Note that the control polygon around the black dots 1, 2, 3 and 4 is outside the input geometry, with the middle of the control polygon being very close to the latter. The only exception is the bottom where the control polygons around black point #5 are shrunk inside, because the intent it to replicate a melted shape, thus the sharp corner of the input NURBS model is ignored.
In comparison, the current implementation of the “Interpolate SubD” option produces heavily distorted output shape, because it misses the ability to ignore sharp corners based on a user-set threshold.
“Quad remesh” with a rough polygonal preview before converting to SubD:
“Quad remesh” shrinks the SubD and can’t follow the original design intent:
The “Interpolate SubD” option produces unnecessary bulging and random distortion:
The side view of the same SubD reveals the true damage caused by the distortion:
Bobi-
This post appears to be a duplicate of the one under the quadremesh title. Was this intentional or an “oops”?
Which “Quad remesh” title do you mean? 
I posted this in the following topic to keep track for the developers for further improvement of all future Rhino releases.
The only thing we use to track things is YouTrack.
I would think that a thread with 30+ post is mostly ignored…
-wim
I will keep posting new proposals for improvement of Rhino in my common topic. In my opinion, it’s a nice collection of ideas that could make Rhino more usable and powerful. It’s up to the developers whether they will ignore them or will take notice.
1 Like
That must be the one I was thinking of. The topic was very close before this one.
I think I asked this before, but it probably won’t hurt to ask again. @Rhino_Bulgaria you are posting a lot of suggestions, which is great, but you also have the tendency to repeat and cross post those in several threads. The latter is not helpful and in fact makes things very hard to find back and track. So I would like to kindly ask you to stop doing that. If you need more attention to a topic, if a thread is left unresponsive, bump it with comment or @ mention instead. Quoting yourself over and over again imo pollutes the conversation instead of helping it forward. Thanks for your understanding.
6 Likes
A while ago, I started to collect important proposals there, in order to not lose my ideas that come to mind as something to be implemented in future Rhino releases. It’s really difficult to keep track on all proposals spread across countless topics. These often get forgotten forever…
1 Like
I agree that about 10% of my proposals that I also put links to the original post are an exact duplicates. However, nearly 90% of the rest of my “duplicate” posts are not true duplicates, because I further expand my proposals with extra text and examples (pictures and 3dm files). I just checked the common topic where I collect my proposals in a single space for a convenient and easy finding. Most of these were not duplicated into other topics. The only exception is the long first post there, which is a mix of new proposals and a collection of my very old proposals from topics 5-10 years ago. Some of the proposals were taken from locked topics that can’t be bumped again with new posts and I expanded these proposals when I created that particular topic. They are not carbon copies of my old posts.
In post #11 above I linked that very topic only because @AlW asked me whether my proposal from post #8 (regarding the improvement of “Quad remesh” to better follow the intended shape) was mentioned somewhere else.
I will try to write less in the future. Thank you for the warning!
1 Like
I think McNeel is well appreciative of your input.
As I understand it @Gijs is merely asking you to not skatter the forum with repetitive requests over multiple threads.
So don’t make fewer suggestions, just structure them differently.
4 Likes
Hence my reply to his post (the one preceding your post here).
I literally wrote “I will try to write less in the future”, not “make fewer suggestions”.
In Bulgaria, we call this “Четене с разбиране” (translates to English like “reading with understanding” or “proper understanding of the written words”).
Does that mean that you would prefer if I flood the forum with hundreds of new threads consisting a single proposal each, rather than collecting all my suggestions into a single and easy to find topic?