With the cross platform development nature of Rhino 6, I’d wish your Windows morass will translate to availability of a Mac RH6 version of XNurbs, for those of us whom like to overpay for underpowered hardware, for the privilege of segregation from said morass?
Pretty please?
…goad the prima donna… warning Will Robinson…
Hej XNurbs,
all I was wondering was that 0,1° G1 is very visible when very specular materials are used and how dense the surfaces may look when G2 has to be achieved.
After all, it is not “picky” designers, but “picky” clients. Companies that have outstanding industrial design are not “picky”, but, rather, quality conscious, which is part of why they are where they are today. I can tell you that if you are executing a consumer product for Samsung or BOSCH or an industrial product for Husqvarna or Caterpillar, and you skate along with “almost but not quite” G1 and G2 solutions, you’ll be leaving the meeting with a swollen red face ; )
That said, I would agree that an surface energy minimising approach is interesting.
I was being sarcastic … and agreeing with you. I especially agree that the example was a little abstract and silly.
So, like he said … hire a designer to make better examples!
Yea, and worse if a 6 figure tool gets cut, and no one ‘notices’ until T1…
The surface conditions for this make G2 unrealistic. This is a test I use to evaluate patch commands. I can do it with a trim but it’s time consuming and the results are better in some areas and worse in others. It’s unrealistic to expect Class A for this example.
Dear XNurb troll with no real name,
You are not worth my time to reply to your idiocy. I’ll just leave you a 6-sided eyeroll emap instead…
Is the eyeroll G42?
To the people at xnurbs, I wasn’t sure if it was asked so I will ask anyway. Do you have a timeline when you think a Rhino version would be available?
I am a fledgling 3D modeler, I am always looking for better tools to use. Pricing a high quality product at a level where a lot of people can use it must be the hard part. I would be very interested for a trial when it becomes available. I hope soon.
Best of luck in your efforts,Mark
Hi gusto,
First of all, so far, we haven’t made any announcement to SolidWorks community. We came to Rhino Forum to get some feedback from Rhino community and estimate the reasonable pricing for Rhino. If necessary, we could adjust our price before announcing XNurbs to SolidWorks community. We could also release a Rhino plugin within a couple of months if Rhino users like XNurbs product. It is a good will to Rhino community.
Secondly, every “picky” follows 
. It means I play some harmless jokes with you. I did not realize my comments corner and upset you.
Thirdly, you are obviously a good designer – even you have no way to produce a better NURBS surface (no high-end software can do it), you play some “eyeroll emap”. Sorry, I shouldn’t corner you.
You are apparently talking with some experienced Ph.D-level guy. I believe that a person with a good education should not deliberately use insulting words to others.
Sorry if my previous comments upset you and I did not mean it.
Hi ec2638 and Lagom,
Could you kindly tell me what a good surface normal deviation is? We could add an UI for setting the normal deviation.
However, I need to remind you that, except for very special cases, every NURBS surface must have a deviation, so it is always “almost but not quite G1 and G2 solutions”. This is the foundation for NURBS modeling that every CAD system must follow, and no NURBS software can enforce the exact solutions.
Hi markintheozarks,
Yes, it is quite challenging to estimate an acceptable pricing for Rhino. Since the Rhino plugin’s capacity is pretty much the same as our SolidWorks one, so we may need to keep the pricing the same. XNurbs can simply overwhelm any existing high-end software for NURBS creation, so it is a bit unfair to expect us to price the product as a low-end software.
Before we posted to the Forum, we discussed with McNeel staff. We could release a Rhino plugin within a couple of months if Rhino users like XNurbs product and their acceptable price is reasonable.
So as has been said your examples are a bit abstract, Any time I find myself wondering how to fill in a patch between 6 edges anymore I realize I’ve make a mistake in expressing my design intent. Whether your code does a nicer job than Rhino’s Patch or Catia, I don’t really care. What else can the tech do? Are the resulting surfaces hand-tweakable?
The tolerances should certainly not be hard-coded.
Hi JimCarruthers,
Basically, the tolerances in all CAD systems are hard-coded, as designers are not mathematicians and may not understand the meaning of tolerances. The tolerance setting is hidden inside their systems, and a user may not even know it.
The abstract model is derived from the well-known “Teddy Bear” model. For people who understand NURBS, the demo means that XNurbs is the ultimate NURBS tool and it solves all kinds of problems for NURBS creation. (As said in our demo video, a n-side patch is a very simple and trivial application for XNurbs.) Perhaps, after trying XNurbs, some designers can tell others this fact. If most Rhino users like XNurbs product and their acceptable price is reasonable, we will release a Rhino plugin soon.
Not true in Rhino. Users can set the absolute tolerance and the angle tolerance
Is trial for rhino out? I only found plugin for solidworks.
Would love to test it.
Though would appreciate if at least two months if that’s possible. I downloaded several render plugins but if I’m not doing render at the time, maybe a week till I get back to it. Same with Multiblends.
I think the workflow needs to thought out for demo validatity period.
I don’t do such expensive stuff yet so really would like to try it. Still hoping around about hundred cheaper tho.
It’s not underestimating the software, but just for the target consumer, it current case, rhino users, they’ll probably spend less on plugins than solidworks users.
Best is say for the first six to a year, to have a attractive pricing, then switch late or continue the promotion as needed. If it doesn’t sell out, it’s same as zero.
Are you sure the absolute tolerance and the angle tolerance are for NURBS? They may be used for graphics (i.e., tessellation) or other geometries.
Slightly correction: Basically, the NURBS tolerances in all CAD systems are hard-coded…
XNurbs certainly looks interesting, I would like to give it a try when a demo version is available.
Regarding pricing, my view is that it should be appreciably lower than the cost of the host software. Part of the problem with VSR was the high cost, it was more than Rhino except for a brief promotion period after the Autodesk acquisition. If I recall correctly, T-Splines and various rendering plug-ins are around half the cost of Rhino. This seems a reasonable level, although it’s hard to judge value when you don’t know the full feature set of the plug-in nor how well it fits into you workflow. If it truly is revolutionary, perhaps it would be worth twice the price of Rhino.
Yes the tolerance setting is for NURBS curves and surfaces.
Rhino has a a global tolerance (for NURBS) that the user can set and also many of the NURBS geometry creation tools have local tolerance settings so that the User can temporally overide the global setting.
If you don’t offer the user control of surface tolerance a plug-in for Rhino has little chance of success. As you can see there is no agreement among users as to what the correct tolerance setting should be,
IMO…The simplistic ‘designer’ answer is:
As a minimum baseline, deviation from the intent should be imperceivable to the naked eye or fingers, incarnate.
For example: When form is produced, one should not be able to see or feel any lack of continuity between nurbs patches if such was the intent. Ability to perceive may be modulated by surface finish; polished metal varies from textured thermoplastic, etc.
While technically relevant, mathamatcal and theoretical application is your minutiae.
Capisce?