I worked with office chairs for HÅG (A leader in ergonomics) some years ago and this is so true. Their biggest competition was spongy, springy, smooth chairs that was SOOO good to sit down in after a long stroll through stores and streets for furniture shopping, but those same fluffy, cromed, fancy pants were horrible for long workhours. But you need good sales persons to convince you to not trust your tired but when it feels soo right. (So testing prototypes for short period of times in unrealistic scenarios is not the same as using it for a while. Same goes for super soft beds vs Tempur beds, supersoft is great to sit down on when tired, but tempur (if your cup of tea) gives the best nights sleep)
That said, G1 does not necessarily give bad ergonomics, but G2 IS smoother. What counts the most is size and radius. I am typing on a Razer Blade now, which has great lines and a sharp edge, which is fine until you type for a while on a too high desk, then it digs into your wrists and gives a slight discomfort. (But I don’t wish for better ergonomics IF it would make it look worse though )
I still cry that Autodesk bought out VSR tools for Class A. That’s all I use and it would be a downgrade to go to Rhino 6 and 7. Its just three toolbars- but man- every tool is elegant and creates super-lightweight clean surfaces.
I find that Keyshot is good at simulating fillet highlights, and sometimes I find that I prefer the way certain blend or fillet highlights ‘light-up’ aspects of an overall design when they are less than G2.
These are subtleties the designer both cares about and can leverage. The end user isn’t cognizant of the underlying aspects/options the designer considered, however, their brain is forming opinions both consciously and subconsciously.
I’m not an experienced designer, but my dad is an engineer. Once I asked him about why the machines his company make looks so ugly. As a result I got 2 hours long lecture about engineering, safety and other stuff like that. The thing I understood - some things don’t meant to be fancy. They meant to be ugly, but effective. I think this is the answer for your question. It’s simple. BTW, not so long ago I’ve bought some machines from this https://www.grabe.com.br/ site. Brazilian equipment looks better than Chinese and works better. So sometimes there is exceptions.
I believe any industry could actually benefit from a “class A” mindset. Not because of the visual aspect but because of the level of control, a clean and light weight surface model has. Nothing beats moving a single controlpoint in space, actually affecting the shape. The level of control is actually what makes a Direct Modelling software still competitive to all the parametric ones.
And as I said in so many of my threads, I really don’t like the “effective” argument. Because I consider something only as more effective, if the outcome is similar. Time is being wasted at so many other places, often because of dealing with messy data or ineffective workflows in first place, but not by the approach choosen.
I with you! Still on V5 for the sake of VSR. It looks like some of the ideas are getting incorporated into V7, but nothing that I’ve seen makes me think I’ll be switching to 7.
Hoooooboy that’s hard to pare down to only three. Like, even if these three were done, I’d likely not upgrade because I get so much functionality out of more than three of the Shape tools. But, here’s what I’d say would be helpful at least to lots of non Shape users for V7, imho.
The ability to check your entire model, numerically, for continuity in the way that Shape does. This tool should return a spreadsheet type list of matching values. Users should be able to select thresholds themselves for what they consider G1/G2 etc. I think in V7 I’ve seen there’s some functionality where you can feed in two edges at once (is this correct or no?) - this is…better than nothing but not going to be all that helpful when models get bigger. We really need the ability to feed a whole model in and highlight the edges that don’t hit a target. I think the idea that Zebra is a valid way to check matching to be totally bonkers, or at least needlessly time intensive. Analyzing things like Shape Global Matching Analysis does is one of those fundamental “how computers make our lives easier” type of things. Clearly, if you know how to read the tea leaves in Rhino MatchSrf (getting sneaky with the Refine box, setting a tangency target), Rhino has the ability to gather this information.
An “Align” type tool that allows different continuity matching for each edge of a surface, but with lots of the Rhino MatchSrf options built in for each edge. Like, you should be able to simultaneously set one edge to G2 with maintain isocurve, and one edge to G1 with match target isocurve. This tool should return in real time the numerical matching values at each edge, so you can see if it’s doing what you’re asking it to do. I also should add that the workflow for using MatchSrf when using multiple edges leaves a lot to be desired - you need to “bat 1,000” when going through all your edges, or start all over again. Like with Shape, in the year 2020 I sorta think you should be able to just click your surface, and it should auto select your matching targets. If it grabs the wrong ones you should be able to assign others without leaving the function. This goes to my greater gripe that I think for many tools in Rhino the UI has been taken to its’ logical endpoint and needs to be totally rethought, but I digress…
A complete revamp of MoveUVN to incorporate much more functionality - things like falloffs and such. Hit me up and I’ll show you some of the stuff the Shape Control Point modeling does - the Extrapolate feature is INSANELY useful. I actually think there’s an opportunity to build an even better tool than the VSR one - for instance you should be able to select faces too, which you can’t. Also, would be amazing to incorporate things like SetPt into it. In addition to being able to dial up and down degree, the same should be possible with spans as well. I’ve long envisioned a sort of “Sculpt Suite” that is an expanded version of the Shape tool - realize that this tool would be SUPER useful for the Sub-D users as well!!! Also - same goes for the UI criticism above. I personally find the MoveUVN UI to be so clunky, but I know other people feel it’s fine.
Really, if we are talking about what would get me to upgrade - the list isn’t infinite, it’s just roughly double the above. Like, there’s about 6-8 things that Shape does so well, for the foreseeable future I’m staying on Shape/V5. But, I think the better question of “what would be the most helpful for Rhino folks who care about surfacing?” - the above three points would be a move in the right direction.
That was @Cadworx ask, not mine, but if I had to fill out more reasons why I’m still on V5/Shape the Shape Blend function is so much better than Rhino’s BlendSrf, it was a toss up between what I put for my #3 ask (complete revamp of MoveUVN), and a complete revamp of Rhino’s BlendSrf.
In Rhino I think its called “Blend Edge”. The distance between the rails is fine, but the CV spacing is not even.
By filleting with a constant rail you let the angle and curvature of the surfaces define the radius.
This only works with even CV spacing.
Rhino does not behave like that. The rail distance can be set to constant, but the CVs are moved along their tangents, with a tendency to keep a a constant radius, while having a constant rail distance.
The result is very poor surface quality without any control:
Right, thanks- it is not particular to chordal fillets, is what I was trying to establish… it is not…
But I understand the gripe - you’d like, apart from any interactive control, the acceleration to remain more constant- the right hand example (Left is current) .
)
