Constraints were removed almost immediately after the exit of the wip9.
1 Like
Hi,
Rhino has all the tools and everything in place yet McNeel fails to implement constraints and better history/parametric based tools. I wouldn’t expect McNeel to to do all this work for something that McNeel feels won’t pay off for them.
In order for constraints to be fully usable Rhino users need simple animation within Rhino. Rhino already has bongo; though I feel completely underfunded and underdeveloped. Bongo has constraints and ik joints etc.
Yet McNeel refuses to fold bongo into Rhino, McNeel refuses to add constraints even though they have all the tools for it to work, most likely because management has deemed it not monetarily worth it. Most likely they would need to have a bunch more developers that McNeel doesn’t want to pay for. I can’t understand why something so good and with so much potential like Rhino is left to fester, Rhino’s development pace, bug fixes and granting user wishes is so terribly slow it’s beyond human longevity.
RM
4 Likes
I find I’m using Rhino less & less and pretty much only use it for grasshopper these days. Majority of my work requires regular design changes (especially during prototype phase & printing parts) and it takes far too long to change geometry in Rhino vs. parametric software. I could never do this quick enough in Rhino:
2 Likes
Parametric changes are limited to parametric shapes, i.e. basic geometry such like cylinders, boxes, fillets and adjusting the position of holes.
There was one exception, a program called SolidThinking, which was able to modify models locally (similar to what “Box edit” in Rhino does, but more advanced).
I would love to see how your other parametric program handles such modification of the geometry with the following model:
Пръстен 1.rar (1.6 MB)
Everything is parametric…sweeps, blends, fillets etc. If I build a surface from curves and the geometry that forms those curves changes, then the surface changes. Obviously things can break, but for most models it’s still easier to fix the few features that don’t update properly than to redo them in Rhino.
I realise some people don’t need parametric software. It’s just that for me with 3d printing and rapid prototyping it’s essential to have models that can change quickly to speed up development & testing.
1 Like
It’s not that people don’t need parametric function. Parametric programs are quite limited when it comes to free-form surface modeling (which is the primary purpose and strength of Rhino). I create models for 3d printing, but they are not cylinders, boxes and other basic shapes that could be adjusted by numerical parameters.
As soon as a single control point of a blend surface is moved by 0,0000001 mm, or the surface joined to another surface, or its edge is being split, the history gets broken forever, hence this is why parametric capabilities are so limited on such shapes.
SolidThinking was able to keep the history of joined and cut blend surfaces and fillets, but it uses a totally different approach.
as Rhino is quite strong in the educational context - already the argument:
students need to learn the concept of sketch, constraint, feature is very strong.
Many of my students have to learn another CAD after their diploma and it would be easier to give them a foundation for this step. Currently i show them onshape or Fusion to understand Constraints and Feature-trees.
i always hoped that a sketch object in rhino can be combined with scripting and grasshopper.
build a parametric geometry in grasshopper can be quite painful compared to feature based / implicit cad.
constraints and features will be a plus for a huge user group
- but does not mean you have to use it. (@Rhino_Bulgaria )
from my side:
for constraints
3 Likes
Every shape can be created with parametric software.
If we start calling these systems by their proper name, feature based, it becomes easier to understand their capabilities.
What this software does, much like Grasshopper, is rebuild the entire model every time a change is made. Unlike Grasshopper, though, its components are advanced predefined tools rather than simple foundational ones.
I can build that shape in Onshape without any issue.
The real added value comes from constraints. Not everyone needs them; reverse modeling doesn’t rely on constraints, but conceptual modeling often does.
The greatest benefit of constraints is the ability to define functional mechanical behaviors, such as complex hinge movements.
This is exactly where Rhino falls short, and where designers often need more power.
My honest opinion.
3 Likes
I would gladly watch a video that shows how that ring is being modeled in Onshape parametrically instead of using surfacing tools.
I like the name implicit cad.
By combining features you create a recipe …
You do not explicit generate unrelated geometry item s.
1 Like
The big challenge for implicit modeling is change in topology in multiple depending features
Meaning another number of surfaces or edges…
You can build this using parametrical surface. And here become the power: you combine surface modeling of complex shape with fast rebuilding of the model. For certain application is a game changer way to build shapes.
The cons is that you require to setup the correct set of constraints at the beginning of your work or the change would break the construction and fixing it may require extra time or a rebuild in the feature tree.
Of course you can’t achieve complex organic shape with solid geometry.
I’m yet to see an actual proof that this particular ring shape could be made via parametric tools.
@Rhino_Bulgaria
here you go - i started a separate topic - if anyone ones to try it with grasshopper - good luck, even if the first version of grasshopper was called “explicit history”
And I replied in the other topic that this example is just a trimmed patch. It’s not a proper model made from single-span surfaces.
but it doesnt really address the reason why people want constraints. Rhino is quickly losing appeal in different fields:
- as a go-to for artists. It used to be a great tool for artists for many reasons, now its mostly a hard to learn tool with some niche tricks that solve things easier than other cad. I love rhino, but for simple surface models plasticity is so much nicer to work with! its basically as if rhino integrated x-nurbs and fixed all the fillet/chamfer headaches.
- as a go to for engineers. 3d-printing and lasercutting tools have made it so cheap to do iterations and when iterations are cheap, you do them. And when you do them, you want to use a constraint capable modeller. You want to test out a fit, you want to remodel quickly and painlessly. 3d printing with rhino is not much fun compared to fusion.
2 things rhino does great and should strengthen:
- grasshopper, need I say more? that there is effort being put into bringing grasshopper to the future is awesome.
- the food4rhino ecosystem is awesome
Really parametric constraint based modelling either integrated or as a paid add-on is the way forward. Even better if grasshopper can reference these constraints and parameters. then you get into a whole other territory.
7 Likes
My message was a bit random and a bit too much for the whole of rhino. I just wanted to say, I come from Rhino, I want to use rhino. I love it for so many reasons. But lately I have been using fusion a lot more and only using rhino for “tricks” it does better, like unrolling surfaces and grasshopper automations.
I pay autodesk a small fortune each year and would much rather pay mcneel. Rhino would kill it by just allowing history to be set to on then have a timeline with constraints there. I want Rhino to be killing it
7 Likes
Constraints sketching in Rhino would be amazing. But I don’t know what is holding it up and how long it will take before it works in Rhino.
Also very important, as it would offer significant advantages even without constraints, would be the extension of CurveBoolean with enabled history.
I think curveboolean should be incorporated into the extrude command.
And it is also a very nice feature. I think rhino should try to copy so me features from fusion/onshape, this would open the door to a lot of user who hate the pricing of fusion, but love its parametric constraints.
I think removing sketches would be great. You dont need sketches for for a timeline to work. It would actually be more intuitive than fusion.
I think the way you should show and hide them (and group them in the timeline) is:
everytime time you draw something, a line, a construction line, you use the constraints tab. All things you do while in the constraints tab should be grouped together automatically and hidden automatically as soon as you have done a non-constraint action after a constraint action. Show_contraints will show all the constraints used in a model. You can select constraints, put them in layers, put them in groups, etc.
They are just geometry, but different geometry. Like you already have curves, meshes, nurbs-surfaces, extrusions, Breps, splines, subd’s in Rhino. Now you also would have constraints. I think you could even create a new concepts of constraining, where you convert a mesh into a constraint for example (to automatically adjust models that intersect with a scan for example), but dont let me jump to the future.
What’s confusing is according to official help the constraints are in v9
Constraints | Rhino 3-D modeling