I know Rhino is a swiss army knife and secretly wielded by lots of auto/vehicle designers, but that it ultimately falls short of tools like ICEM / CATIA which are specialized tools for building Class A surfaces. And I get that Class A surfaces are crucial for cars in particular, because the look and integrity of the car is all about the curvature/shape/profile, and how reflections/light hit it, etc.
But… isn’t that also true for all architecture, particular any non-rectilinear architecture? Look around the world and you see countless dynamic, swooping, curved, futuristic, smooth surface buildings, facades, overhangs, and structures.
And think about the vast majority of industrial design… take Airpods, or hair dryers, or literally any object known for multiple curved surfaces.
And as I understand it, many of these structures are not only conceptually designed in Rhino, but also fully produced in Rhino. I hear repeatedly how common Rhino is in arch firms / industrial design firms.
If that’s the case, why aren’t Class A surfaces such a big hot stink for industrial design / architecture? Why do auto designers spend years and years of specialized Class A surface training with these extremely esoteric/expensive specialized tools (ICEM, CATIA), but it doesn’t seem to be the case for architecture or other types of industrial design? Certainly lots of objects behind cars require “perfect” surfaces… no?
What is the nuance I’m missing from these fields?