Regarding “basic functionality” it’s not only about wasting time, it’s also about having a tool chain stable over time. Not all plugin providers stay in the loop, and so you may get stuck with a plugin that suddenly doesn’t work. I’m saying this about basic functionality.
What puzzles me sometimes is things like this: Bongo already has a tool for doing exactly this. So McNeel already has the tool.
And as I have indicated in another recent post (no response) it’s a bit difficult to fully understand why the tools in the same product family from the same company cannot communicate with each other, and in this case, cannot borrow existing functionality between the company’s own existing set of tools?
I don’t want to be grumpy or so, I just don’t understand it.
If I were involved with McNeel I would make a simple “tool & functionality matrix” over night and (re)discover the potential increased value (and functionality) that you already have, which is not fully utilized where they could be shared among the different tools without competing with each other as separate products with different core functionality. This could potentially provide very much increased value for all. In this case the existing core functionality (the video editor in Bongo) could be wrapped into both vanilla Rhino and a GrassHopper Component.
Just my 2C.
// Rolf