![]() ![]() Where the program is NURBS based and not polygon (mesh) based, the modeling tools feel like they accomplish more and look better in the end. I think the features that I liked most included the 3D modeling tools/commands. Plus, the price seems to be very competitive for what you get. Most of the time, it creates a different surface in the shape of the chamfer, instead of modifying the mesh so as to create the chamfer or fillet in itĬomments: Overall experience has been positive! Great computing power and minimal extra effort to learn the software. I also use the boolean tool quite often and sometimes i get the (!) errors but they dont specify what the issue is so i always struggle to fix it and create the results i want.Ĭreating chamfers and fillets is also complicated in rhino. This means i have to export my meshes to another program (i use solidworks a lot for that) so as to check for errors. On top of that, rhino doesnt let me know when this happens and i only find out when i try to print the file. Even after having different options (like End, Point, etc) turned on, its extremely hard to join a point to another or to a line. Rhino allows me to create surfaces and meshes according to the way i think them, i can create them by adding/substracting or i can create them procedurallyĮvery time i create something in rhino, i always struggle to not leave any vertices open. I normally use the icons to create the objetcs i want but the searchbar allows me to create things i wasnt aware that were an option.īeing able to see different views and modify my objects in all of them at the same time really helps with the flow of my work! I love the logic of the tools and how theyre organized. Rhino allows me to create objects in multiple ways but there are too many issues that force me to switch programs constantly so as to be able to fully define my objects without errors. Some visual feedback on problem areas would be awesome.Ĭomments: The logic of the program and the way its organized is super helpful. There are also times when complex surfacing commands fail for no apparent reason. Grasshopper has some answers here, but the learning curve is very steep and time consuming. I would love a more parametric approach to surface modelling. Rhino is not perfect, there are frustrating parts about the controls and interface like all programs. It simply offers the best bang for buck in the market place. In the feature film industry where I work I have seen Rhino taking market share especially since they released a MAC compatible version. ![]() The team at Rhino should be commended for the reliability and stability of their product. The high end products are often buggy, have poorly implemented new features and draconian licensing systems. I own license's for other much more expensive Parametric solids modellers which led me to expect even higher capabilities and quality. Its also highly extensible with a range of companion programs and add-ons. Its extensibility with Grasshopper has really made it unique in the CAD world. The more I use Rhino the more I discover it can do. They have also made great strides in the drafting component of the software to the point where I finally ditched AutoCAD. Solids, surfaces or meshes, Rhino is great. The best thing about Rhino is that it does everything well. The product is highly capable, excellently coded and well supported by the manufacturer. Comments: If I could only have one CAD program I'd choose Rhino. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |