While the “Inset” tool is nice, I think that Rhino will benefit from having a more complete alternative tool (InsetExtrude) that offers both, adjustable individual offset distance to all sides and extrusion of the newly created face. Here is a quick example that shows the ability to set custom offset of the edges and extrusion (negative in this case) simultaneously. Once the command is completed, the extruded face is selected automatically.
Additionally, the dialog box (or Command line options) must provide 3 options to set Bevel, a.k.a. extrusion angle, with 90 degrees being the default value (a straight extrusion) and 45 degrees as an alternative value, since those two are the most commonly used extrusion angles. The 3rd option is a numerical field with tiny vertical arrows where the user could set any custom angle via the keyboard or the aforementioned arrows that change the value by 1.
Still nobody from “McNeel” sees the benefit of this functionality? 
That seems handy to me.
Is the hoped-for result different from what you’d get if you created an extrusion yourself and booleaned it with the parent solid or is more complicated?
The idea is to be able to accurately place an inset on a face, by adjusting the offset distance of each edge. the example shown above is of a simple box. Obviously, complex objects with multiple edges on the selected face will result into having an inset with the corresponding number of handles to adjust the offset distance.
The “Bevel” option is a convenient way to automate the creation of architectural or futuristic shapes, especially for those who use 45 degrees. Like the sample below featuring an inset of 10 mm on 3 of the sides and 45 mm on the 4th side, 8 mm extrusion distance, plus an optional bevel of 45 degrees.
InsetBevel.3dm (210.5 KB)
It seems handy to me and also seems pretty easy to implement using the primitives they give us to work with.
Not saying it wouldn’t be good to have in Rhino, but curious: Some of the CAM plugins must include features like this?
While the example model above is quite easy to make with the existing tools in Rhino, more complex shapes will definitely require a lot of time to achieve such an “InsetExtrude”, especially with added bevel at a certain angle.
Here is another example where the original model has the top surface split into 3 pieces, in order to force the (imaginary) “InsetExtrude” tool to create 3 pockets at once, with an optional bevel set at 45 degrees.
There could be an additional option to match the thickness of each wall (marked with 1 and 2) between nearby regions to be same as the general inset distance. This way, the two walls that separate the 3 pockets will have the same thickness as the border. With this option turned off, the two separating walls would be twice as thick.
InsetBevel 2.3dm (346.6 KB)
Imagine having to apply similar inset bevel pockets to multiple elements with the existing tools in Rhino. But the main purpose of this tool is to be able to create inset regions with adjustable distance per each separate wall, similar to what the driving dimensions should do in Rhino 9.
I’m looking at the more recent example and thinking, for each bevel:
User traces upper boundary curve (A)
User specifies distance to keep
User specifies depth
Offset boundary curve in by border thickness (keep as B)
Offset boundary curve in by depth (call C)
Translate C into the surface by depth (keep as D), yielding a 45 deg angle bevel
Form surface B<->D (keep as E)
Cap surface E with B and D, forming solid (keep as F)
Boolean subtract F from the original.
If that’s right, it should be pretty easy to script (RhinoCommon would be my preference but probably GH too).
1 Like
It should work something like that. Not sure if it can be done as a macro with the existing tool, though. Especially the ability to set different offset distance to individual segments of the border.
This doesn’t seem like a very hard problem to solve for reasonable use cases within the scope of what you describe.
I think the best way is to have the user designate particular beveled ‘areas’ which turn into subtracted volumes rather than try to develop a UI which enables specifying all of the particulars for multiple bevels within a particular surface.
I’m a little surprised about not seeing previous help requests. How often do you encounter this problem?
Personally I don’t create such shapes too often, but such tool will be quite useful for those who work on architectural projects and wooden furniture like wardrobe or kitchen modules.
