XNurbs Rhino plugin is available!

Or you could have simply clicked the Help button on the xNURBS toolbar.

That is true, and you will find that info in the Rhino documentation and tutorials.

E.g. to understand in Rhino Loft, Sweep, Patch and more.


You should learn this first.

I don’t agree that it is because of no audio.

Because a surface can’t be tangent to a point (e.g.).

Good you know about XYZ (not meant sarcastic).
You will learn about UVN when you go through the basics.

You won’t find a tool which frees you from learning and understanding.
Even using a hammer requires some knowledge in physics, and some training.

xNURBS is not a standalone tool.
As you know it is a Rhino Plugin.
You need some basic knowledge!
The xNURBS doc can’t explain all from ground up.

And what do you miss now?

Why should it?
If you would know what trimmed/untrimmed is, you wouldn’t ask.

You will find detailed explanations of this in the Rhino doc and tutorials.

E.g. by shortening the curve.

Creating the wing is a 1 minute task.
When you know some basics - you don’t have to be experienced to do it.
I don’t think a voiceover will help.

There are no xNURBS surfaces.
The surfaces created with xNURBS are just NURBS surfaces.
See xNURBS documentation…

No video necessary.
You need to know the nature of NURBS surfaces!

You blame Rhino and xNURBS docs instead of learning.
You look for a tool that ‘just works’ without learning anything.
You ignore helpful answers.
Isn’t it you who throws mud?

Relax, go through a basic Rhino tutorial, then you are many steps in the right direction.

Because Mr. xNURBS learned, thought, researched, and invested time in the XNKernel.
And I’m sure he didn’t blame Microsoft for the C++ docs.
He learned the basics first; what is a variable, data types, a loop etc., and of course a lot of math knowledge is required.
Math knowledge starts in primary school :slight_smile:

We all accept?
Better speak for yourself only.

xNURBS is not a “work in progress” program, it is ready in it’s current stage.
As with nearly all software, there is always room for enhancement.
xNURBS was very usable from the beginning on.
And it evolves - see the enhancements in V2.
In no way it can be described as “a work in progress” software.

That’s very true!

Perhaps it is a good idea to discuss all the basic stuff in a separate thread?

1 Like

This car fender animation shows how to set xNURBS boundary and internal constraints.

For a newb, it would be very helpful to go through basic Rhino tutorials.


Hi Guys,

xNURBS V2.1 will be available very soon. One improvement is some new UV flow option as illustrated in the following GIF.

The model “UVFlowAngleGif.3dm” is attached. For this trivial model, if anyone could produce a better G2 surface with other surfacing tools, we would consider to further optimizate the new UV flow option of V2.1. (We think the option may be good enougn.) Many thanks.
UVFlowAngleGif.3dm (397.8 KB)


I believe the resulting surface blend is pretty amazing, especially given the complexity of that trimmed bottom edge.:+1:

Yeah this is really amazing. Get this thing on the CloudZoo @XNurbs, we need it now!



1 Like

Getting better and better.
Can’t wait to test this.

Cheers, Norbert

1 Like

Not necessarily true. I’d been one of the very early users of Rhino since 1995, a Rhino enthusiast and even a reseller (not my business, just a service to my clients) but I’ve got quite disappointed overtime.
Put upgrading on hold.
Just looking how and if things improve. Too many old flaws and unsolved issues still plaguing what was a great little tool, light and super agile.
World moved on and Rhino didn’t keep pace with the evolution. Steady stiff on some misconceptions and now very old assumptions (UI just to mention one, memory management another one, at least in my opinion, since they switched from Alias core libs to their own core).

Did you ever try MoI from the original creator of Rhino ? Not comparable in terms of number of tools and functions available, but MoI surfaces are much better, lighter and keep continuity under any circumstances even after the most brutal deformation (history and simmetry perfectly working, ALWAYS). Unfortunately Michael is a one man band.

And this brins to another interesting aspect of this thread.
The “somehow and sometimes rude approach of Xnurbs”. I wonder if they’re Russians.
Exact same attitude of another Russian developer (fStorm) delivering an outstanding product, but definitely unpolite and missing most of common marketing principles.

However, in both cases, one man bands or small teams producing some great tools, far beyond any competitor. (and all of them Michael-MoI, Andrey-fStorm3D and Xnurbs, really listen to their users).

I came to this page by chance, and I’ve got stuck on it. Reading every single comment, and looking amazed at the videos. I’m really intrigued by this product and it could be one very convincing motivation to re-join the Rhino community, upgrading my licenses.

I admit, I’d been very close to abandon Rhino forever. It’s just that I’m too lazy, and too comfortable with it. As I said one, it’s just sketching on a napkin.
However, sometimes it’s also a pain in the ass. taking hours in stupid workarounds only to get rid of fxxxxxng fillets or other absurd situations (deprecated edges, unjoined single edges and so far). Something you would expect having been solved after some 25 years on the market.

By the way, during the transition from V2 to V3, when they had to urgently rewrite the core, I was asked to assist testing the IGES and STP translation from and to SDRC I-DEAS.
We noticed something strange and informed Mcneel team of it.
While V2 produced very consistent surfaces, well matching SDRC’s, V3 - on the contrary - produced something strange, heavier surfaces, unnecssarily complicated in term of spans, and did the same to the original, translated SDRC produced (originally clean) surfaces.

I can see a similar behavior on how Rhino converted from T-Splines to NURBS compared to the same operation in other apps.
Way too complicated and heavy nurbs patches, while other apps produce much more consistent, lighter and clean NURBS. I believe that’s connected to the odd memory management which plagued Rhino since V3.

So far, I sincerely clap hands to Xnurbs at least for their efforts and keeping this long thread alive and so interesting, most probably one of the most interesting ones in a very long time.
And - in my opinion - it seems they’re offering a “little” but absolutely necessary tool, to bridge the huge gap still existing in Rhino in terms of surface quality and continuity control.

Well done guys, I will seriously consider the next move and will surely give a try.


We should be able to provide a cloud-based licensing after xNURBS V2.1.

While Rhino Cloud-Zoo is available to plugins, it is a bit difficult for a plugin to support the current Cloud-Zoo SDK. Unlike floating licensing, for any cloud-based licensing, the license management is trivial. We also want to provide a cloud-based licensing ASAP. So we will go ahead to implement some cloud-based licensing.

More GIF animations of xNURBS

Blending Y-shaped Pipeline with one watertight G2 surface.


Blending dozens of edges with one watertight G2 NURBS surface.


I would like to praise Xnurbs support for promptly and kindly helping me to fix an installation problem.
Super fast and super keen support, thank you again.
The plugin is pretty easy to use.
I will now try to seriously use it on some challenging task, will keep informed. But it looks promising.

prepare to be amazed…

1 Like

Fo you have a sense of timing for this? when would you see the CloudZoo being implemented.

From a user standpoint we find Cloud-Zoo a trivial one to use and manage, and any other online cloud-based licensing system something that always has problems and we decided we are done bringing any more to the team.


Even the first created surface had many wavy areas (check 1:15 minute of your video), then virtually any new surface patch also had similar improper shape. As a result, while the bumper may have G2 continuity between the adjacent patches, it’s nowhere close to the surface quality necessary to manufacture a bumper or other part where a proper surface flow (consistent, smooth reflections) is a must. My suggestion is to try to make a new sample bumper with those imperfections being solved or at least made less obvious. The bumper in its current state has plenty of surfaces that randomly change their angle of inclination, hence they make the reflections look wavy. As a result, they appear to be something like a smoothed out mesh model from 3DS Max. Many Rhino users could achieve better surface quality with Rhino 2.

The same happened with the mouse’s top shape that has wavy area in the middle. The eventual Zebra analysis just made it even more obvious.

The last example on your website (a patch that fills a 5-sided hole at the end of two fillets) creates extremely wavy surface that’s nowhere near of the target result.

I think that XNurbs is a very good patch command with real-time preview whose capabilities are far better than the regular “Patch” command of Rhino. However, I find it overly-optimistic to advertise XNurbs as a powerful tool that could find solution for any situation. The sample 3d models of the front bumper, the jet body, the computer mouse and several others proved that XNurbs can’t compete with classic tools like “Blend surface”, “Sweep 2 rail”, “Match surface”, “Loft” etc. There is a good reason for each of them to exist and perform best in specific situations.

On a side note, many people already noted that you will gain more respect if you stop repeating that even experienced Rhino users don’t know how to properly use XNurbs. XNurbs, even used by its creator (supposedly you) and the guy who made those demos (Vladimir Aleksic) is still not capable to provide optically proper surface quality. Having G2 continuity is one thing. Having smooth flow of the whole shape is another thing.

Could you upload the “Watertight Fender” 3d model here so that I could examine its surface quality?

I’m considering purchasing your patch plug-in if it proves to be good enough. Could you explain what is “The price includes all minor updates and tax”? Since the current XNurbs is version 2.*, does that mean that owners of version 1 had to pay extra to unlock the bug fixes and improvements of version 2? What happens after a few months, when you add a few more bug fixes and improvements and rename the plug-in as version 3? Will that require existing owners to pay extra to get access to that functionality?



1 Like

Could XNurbs solve that Y-branch situation yet? 3 months ago it was not capable of doing it.
On your website XNurbs is advertised that way:

XNurbs uses one simple UI to solve all kinds of problems for NURBS creations – It virtually has an unlimited capacity for solving NURBS and generating high-quality surfaces based on energy-minimization method.

Test multiblend using basic Rhino 6 surface tools.3dm (10.1 MB)

1 Like

Most of the the XNurbs results shown in this thread do not appear to be suitable for modification and editing after creation. As @Rhino_Bulgaria mentioned XNurbs appears to be a good substitute for Patch in many situations. However I typically use Patch with starting surface option and fixed boundary option. ere I create an intial surface with the desired degrees and number of control points and then use Patch to fit the surface to interior curves and/or points. Does XNurbs have any ability to start with a user specified surface?

1 Like

That was super easy to beat with Rhino’s basic tools for less than a minute (with the added benefit of having a total control of the surface flow for future modifications). Here is a short tutorial showing how to do it:

Rhino tools are superior in this scenario.3dm (1.4 MB)

It appears that you don’t understand the basic concept of NURBS: how could you use one single NURBS surface to satisfy such a G0 boundary condition. As said by others,

Your example is the same as that crap.

“There is a good reason for each of them to exist and perform best in specific situations.”
Wrong. They were developed because of mathematical limits in 1980s: to solve a surface, developers had to create a linear system. xNurbs is a non-linear system. I guess that you don’t understand the difference between a linear system and a non-linear system.

BTW, for UVFlowAngle, you manually manipulate control points and manually create the surface. You may need to provide some GIF animations to show others how you did it. If the original surfaces are deformed/trimmed and the isocurve directions do not make any sense, then how could you manually create the surface? Also, the xNURBS surface uses an un-optimized input. If it uses an optimized input from those linear tools and solve the condition with its non-linear solver, then you won’t stand a chance. As said “if anyone could produce a better G2 surface with other surfacing tools, we would consider to further optimizate the new UV flow option of V2.1.”. In other words, we are considering if it is necessary to uses an optimized input. We don’t see any reason to further optimize the input condition.

The videos you mentioned were created by V1.1 and V2.x can produce better surfaces. However, we won’t waste our time to reproduce them so as to satisfy a tiny number of users who prefer to manually create surfaces by some primitive tools.

Yes, the most basic version of xn kernel has this capacity: you can simply the desired degrees and number of control points.

However, designing a simple UI for it won’t be easy: xNURBS supports degree 1 up to degree 20. So it could produce a surface with degree 9 in U and degree 6 in V.

We plan to provide a cloud-based licensing with V2.2. So it is about two months.

As said, “While Rhino Cloud-Zoo is available to plugins, it is a bit difficult for a plugin to support the current Cloud-Zoo SDK”. Rhino may improve its Cloud-Zoo SDK over time, but we want to provide a cloud-based licensing ASAP. So we will go ahead to implement some cloud-based licensing, which should be trivial to use and manage.