As already said, all pirated users are stuck in V1.2. In other words, for anyone who are interested in V1.2, it simply means they use pirated xNURBS. We really have no intention to deal with a very number of trolls.
Hope users can use this thread as a place to provide useful feedback.
@XNurbs I have been very impressed with your efforts and help so far to improve XNurbs, but the tone of the last couple of posts especially towards @Rhino_Bulgaria makes me want to flag these posts as being very aggressive. I studied his surface created with plain Rhino tools and must confess that the flow of the result created by XNurbs doesnât match it. I tried both 1.42 and 2.0 but get similar (though somewhat different) results. The Xnurbs results are more dense:
also the curvature graph reveals that the flow of the surface isnât as fluid:
I did notice the imperfections too in the videos pointed out, especially the bumper. I donât think it is a limitation of version 1.x though, but rather a constraints issue, that can only be solved by gradually refining the model. I interpreted that video rather as a workflow video though instead of that the video should show a âperfectâ model.
I am interested to see as well if we can now come closer to a perfect model with the additional options in v2.0/2.1 So if @Vladimir_Aleksic would be so kind to share the bumper model, we could al learn and improve future versions of XNurbs.
Hey guys, can you all check this example below?
Can you please tell me who can surface better of all those kids?
Who is a pirate?
Who writes better software?
Thanks,
G
PS: grow the fuck up, stop acting like 12 yo boys.
XNurbs offers one important setting that the current âBlend surfaceâ of Rhino still lacks at the moment. I mean the ability to match the side edges of the blend surface to the direction of the side edges of the target surface(s). That was requested multiple times, and XNurbs proves that it implementation for a future updated âBlend surfaceâ is possible. âMatch surfaceâ will also benefit from that functionality.
You want to use the single span for concept designing, right?
V2.1 provides a âSatisfy Precision Requirementsâ option. Unchecking the option will produce a single span surface. Of course, the option has other applications. Please check the generated model at the bottom of this post and you may notice the deviation or gap.
@XNurbs. Thanks for sharing this. I downloaded the model and I believe this is close to what I asked for. I see the surface is a degree 5 surface. A question I have is with regards to respecting input geometry.
If a four sided input is for example degree 3 in the U direction and degree 5 in the V direction will it respect the input geometry? So the output would be a surface with degree 3 in U and degree 5 in V, or will it always build a single span degree 5 surface in both U and V.
Regardless, I believe this would be a great option to have since you can build very clean concept surfaces. The fact that thay may not match 100% is not always critical in the concept phase (at least not for me). In addition to this. If the concept surfaces are only a positional match with a blend to be build later they donât even need to be position. If they are close I will trim away the edges anyway to build the secondary blend in between.
Looking forward to try this when released. Thanks.
I think that XNurbs version 1.x did a better job. Showing the control points of the Xnurbs patch made with version 2.x reveals some chaotic arrangement.
This isnât the case. At loose settings 1.x produces similar results. See also this post:
I said that XNurbs 1.x did a better job previously with the same input surfaces, because the latest example is basically G00 (out of tolerance) and for some unknown reason it produced a patch with strange chaotic distribution of the control points.
I thought you were merely referring to the chaotic points. I donât have access to the computer where I use XNurbs on right now, but I kept all versions of XNurbs installers. When I get a chance I will try this sample with earlier versions and post back the results.
The real issue for xNURBS is xNURBS is over-powerful and causes some concerns from other CAD vendors.
People in the CAD industry told us very clearly: xNURBS technique is too good; If other CAD vendors lose sales, they will try to play ânasty tricksâ on xNURBS; Also there is no way that Dassault will let SolidWorks continue to work with us on the existing partnership because xNURBS could interfere with CATIA sales.
While SolidWorks promised that âthey have no difficulty to approve xNURBS addinâ and âthey have been working very hard to get xNURBS approvedâ, they could never deliver their promise. You should ask Dassault what happened. Yes, they never did something like what they did on xNURBS before, otherwise they wonât have any partners.
Some clueless troll claims that xNURBS is an advanced patching tool. If Dassault is that stupid, then SolidWorks wonât have so many trouble on xNURBSâs approvement.
This thread draws watchful eyes from other CAD vendors and there are some professional trolls working on this thread, so be careful what you post on this thread.
Obviously, one winner of xNURBS technique is Rhino and Rhino users.
In a little while we will see Autodesk buy this technology too; I would like to see if they offered you so much money!
I see some different results happening from XNurbs 1.40 and later revisions, but none of them builds a surface with evenly distributed control points. While version 2.1 shows improvements, Rhinoâs native âBlend surfaceâ is still much better.
That wonât happen. Autodesk doesnât need another patch command.
Maybe the control point structure doesnât look very nice, but you cannot really compare it to a Rhino BlendSrf, since those are degree 3 in the direction perpendicular to the blend direction. Since this is a degree 5 single span you can see even in version 1.x it is still a smooth result and 2.1 seems to be a vast improvement.
That being said, I agree it would be nice if XNurbs could generate something that comes more close to this:
Would you stop with these schizophrenic posts, it does nothing to help you get a professional image.
What I see here is people discussing geometry and mathematics but you keep going back to these childish subjects; CAD vendors are afraid of us, pirates are everywhere, there are some trolls among us⌠please stop and then we may consider sending you money for your tools.
Last week we added xNURBS to food4rhino. Someone immediately gave it a 1 star vote (meaning xNURBS is rubbish). Rhino removed it as the 1 star vote was made by a fake person. Some professional trolls deliberately try to sow disinformation on xNURBS. According to the trolls, xNURBS is useless and V1.x is better than V2.x. So we should stop developing such a rubbish software and stop providing such a rubbish software. Trolls: you donât need to repeatedly send us such a message.
The following are some of the reviews made by real people:
âSuper powerful. A must have for Rhino users.â PJ Chen Design, www.pjchendesign.com
âThis is fantastic. As a long time Rhino user, I installed your trial for XNurbs this morning. Iâm hooked! What a terrific plug-in. Iâm just writing to say thank you for making this available. It works like you think it should and the results are amazing. I wish Iâd had this tool years ago. Nice work.â Brian Jackson, www.armadillometal.com
âxNURBS is a major add on that complements beautifully Rhinoâ s surfacing tools. It s a must have and I recommend it to any serious surfacing rhino users out there. Keep up the great work Xnurbs and thanks for your efforts.â Alexandre Galin, Rhino 3D Tutorials, www.alexandregalin.com
âxNURBS has picked up the slack covering Rhinoâs Achilles Heel â which makes surfaces a breeze, easy, simplified & fun now!â Ronald Albertsen
âXNurbs is a very welcome addition to my Rhino toolbox. The ability to create clean surfaces with good continuity on all four sides in one operation is a real time saver. Not to mention it is actively being developed and improved, XNurbs is transforming my Rhino workflow.â Mark Landsaat
âI just installed the trial and simply just amazed by this plugin. I spent 20 seconds and I was convinced to purchase a license. I like how simple xNurbs is to use, how efficient it is and how boundary and non boundary constraints make the plugin that much more powerful and capable.â Yelen Aye, Faculty, go.pasadena.edu
For genuine users: we donât want to waste our time with trolls. If you have any question, please do not post it here as you may not get any reply.
So then why do you keep wasting our time with it?
This part below is the ONLY THING you should have posted IMO:
Brilliant plugin!
Take my money now, though I am not changing my workflow from a Mac to a PCâŚ
there are many of us Industrial Designers who use macOS especially since Rhino for mac became a thing -
Let me add my vote for a Mac version, down the line!
Thanks for listening!
