It is so immensely satisfying to reenact your tutorials. It should be offered as a therapy, despite its high addictiveness. Starting at about 6:00 you polish the verts: I enjoyed doing this so much, I applied the logic you are using between 2:00 and 4:00 to put the verts in one plane, to arrange the verts "inside of the surface", in the second and third row, into their own planes, those verts you are moving around from 06:00 on. I'm just asking myself wether there was a tool or function or a method of applying matchsrf to do this for me in an automated way ? And of course I'm asking myself how much sense it is making other then giving me satisfaction. p.s.: ...pressing F5 in addition to F10 all the time now to bring up "poor mans(=Rhino7/8 users) VSR" = GEC, GlobalEdgeContinuity, after discovering it in the comments of your videos.
Studying your videos slowly but carefully... These are so great, thank you for posting this whole series. The rhino methods I've been taught at the university is just like you described, it's based on curves. Not surface sculpting. You are modelling very similarly to a blender or maya user would think actually
note to the author of the video, the command pull doesn't seem to work as expected, as the resulting curve seems to be different than the edge from where it came, the proper command seems to be the one named project curves, (located in the curve from object tool tab/screen/window), in this case I went to the RIGHT window so I am looking at the blend as if it were only a curve thus I am looking at it straight ahead and the surface that was just previously created with the extrude command is just past the blend, here I used the PROJECT curves command and this one did work, or so it seems, for the moment the control points do seem to be in the proper locations and the resulting curve does seem to be identical to the blend from where it came from... finally I went ahead and used the match command and this did also work as we were expecting
He pulled the duped edge to a planar extrusion and then matched the original surface edge to the pulled one to ensure it is planar. I guess one could do that by setting a convenient CPlane and using command SetPt but this seems pretty convenient if well executed.
This case is pretty much a special case 1 (easiest possible). The basic method is shown. Now, lets "ball corner" a three sided corner with curvatures in three directions. Also could include the fourth "top" surface also with a curvature: · case 2 (surfaces have periodic nature with a sub-case of Bèzier nature, second degree curvature, circular/arc type) · case 3 (surfaces have at least 3rd degree, Bèzier NURBS nature) - this is what I had to use in my design; an absolute nightmare yet manageable!
The approach is actually identical if you have surfaces that are non planar! You just end up spending more time using MatchSrf is all. I've been too busy with other work to create the next cases, but really and truly if you can do this, then you can at least apply the same approach to the cases you discuss.
uhm... Nice, but when I try to repeat all your steps in Rhino 7 it doesn't work like that :( When I start Matching Surfaces one by one, it matches 2 edges I select, but breaks all connected! You match 1, it breaks 2. You match 2, it brakes 1 and 3. :( If I use MatchSrf and MultipleMatches it kinda matches, at least no visible holes, but Zebra analysis looks ugly :( And edgeanalysis shows final mesh is not even watertight. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, or is it v7 problem...
I have some serious problems with rhino software and some complaints and even personal conjectures... 1st of all I am trying to replicate this exercise/example. and from the very start rhino start making problems, here for example: if I try to create a CURVE blend from one edge to the next edge(by using the quick curve blend command), the curve created has a different control point location than the control point locations that appear if I were to create the blend by using the blend surface command, as with this last one, the 2 control points in the middle of the 5 degree surface are closer to each other, shouldn't these 2 blends have these control points in the same locations as a default? this seems like a deal breaker to me, now I went ahead with the exercise by choosing to keep the surface created with the blend surface command knowing that if I were to choose to use the previous option the final shape would be extremely different due to the control point location, and then as soon as I used the pull command, the resulting curve is clearly not in line with the blend from where it was made I thought that this could be corrected if I were to do the operation in the RIGHT side window, expecting that the curve would appear just straight ahead, but na, the curve had the same wrong shape as with the previous attempt, this makes me fill like rhino has something wrong!, now for years I was learning this software and for a time I considered my self as a advanced rhino designer, but then it became clear that I was wrong, rhino has to many flaws and in my opinion these flaws are deal breakers and in my opinion I lost years to a software that is plagued with problems and that seems to openly disregard the years wasted that the student and user are going to go through if they make the mistake of choosing to use this software, to me it seems like rhino is nothing else than a test bed a test platform, to me it seems like the the mc Neel company is selling the good commands, after having put the ugly babies to grow in this platform/test bed named rhino, in this day and age rhino simply has to many flaws that clearly could have been fixed decades ago, the company has the cash and the ppl to fix all these flaws and yet they have not done this, how is it possible that newer programs have way better all around platforms than rhino, if rhino was there decades before them, to me rhino is a test bed, just like we saw that they had Tsplines and later was sold to autodesk, freaking nightmare I have years using the bloody software and yet it still keeps tossing me low balls... cheap bastards fix the damn software!
When you're point-editing to fix the flow something that's intended to be symmetrical (like you did with the corner), would you go back and split and mirror the part, or is eyeballing usually safe?
It is so immensely satisfying to reenact your tutorials.
It should be offered as a therapy, despite its high addictiveness.
Starting at about 6:00 you polish the verts: I enjoyed doing this so much, I applied the logic you are using between 2:00 and 4:00 to put the verts in one plane, to arrange the verts "inside of the surface", in the second and third row, into their own planes, those verts you are moving around from 06:00 on. I'm just asking myself wether there was a tool or function or a method of applying matchsrf to do this for me in an automated way ?
And of course I'm asking myself how much sense it is making other then giving me satisfaction.
p.s.:
...pressing F5 in addition to F10 all the time now to bring up "poor mans(=Rhino7/8 users) VSR" = GEC, GlobalEdgeContinuity, after discovering it in the comments of your videos.
Studying your videos slowly but carefully... These are so great, thank you for posting this whole series. The rhino methods I've been taught at the university is just like you described, it's based on curves. Not surface sculpting. You are modelling very similarly to a blender or maya user would think actually
Wow didn’t know you could simultaneously match edges on the same surface in one MatchSrf
Neither did I, great tut
right click the icon is your friend in case of doubt... that is how Rhino nests ×2 commands in one icon.
note to the author of the video, the command pull doesn't seem to work as expected, as the resulting curve seems to be different than the edge from where it came, the proper command seems to be the one named project curves, (located in the curve from object tool tab/screen/window), in this case I went to the RIGHT window so I am looking at the blend as if it were only a curve thus I am looking at it straight ahead and the surface that was just previously created with the extrude command is just past the blend, here I used the PROJECT curves command and this one did work, or so it seems, for the moment the control points do seem to be in the proper locations and the resulting curve does seem to be identical to the blend from where it came from... finally I went ahead and used the match command and this did also work as we were expecting
very good, excellent tutorial, cheers 👍🏼
I didn't understand why after you did the pull you proceeded with at match surf.... match what to what?
He pulled the duped edge to a planar extrusion and then matched the original surface edge to the pulled one to ensure it is planar. I guess one could do that by setting a convenient CPlane and using command SetPt but this seems pretty convenient if well executed.
This case is pretty much a special case 1 (easiest possible). The basic method is shown. Now, lets "ball corner" a three sided corner with curvatures in three directions. Also could include the fourth "top" surface also with a curvature:
· case 2 (surfaces have periodic nature with a sub-case of Bèzier nature, second degree curvature, circular/arc type)
· case 3 (surfaces have at least 3rd degree, Bèzier NURBS nature) - this is what I had to use in my design; an absolute nightmare yet manageable!
The approach is actually identical if you have surfaces that are non planar! You just end up spending more time using MatchSrf is all. I've been too busy with other work to create the next cases, but really and truly if you can do this, then you can at least apply the same approach to the cases you discuss.
Please make a video using a single span surface to make a simple wooden carving
uhm... Nice, but when I try to repeat all your steps in Rhino 7 it doesn't work like that :( When I start Matching Surfaces one by one, it matches 2 edges I select, but breaks all connected! You match 1, it breaks 2. You match 2, it brakes 1 and 3. :( If I use MatchSrf and MultipleMatches it kinda matches, at least no visible holes, but Zebra analysis looks ugly :( And edgeanalysis shows final mesh is not even watertight. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, or is it v7 problem...
I have some serious problems with rhino software and some complaints and even personal conjectures...
1st of all I am trying to replicate this exercise/example. and from the very start rhino start making problems, here for example:
if I try to create a CURVE blend from one edge to the next edge(by using the quick curve blend command), the curve created has a different control point location than the control point locations that appear if I were to create the blend by using the blend surface command, as with this last one, the 2 control points in the middle of the 5 degree surface are closer to each other, shouldn't these 2 blends have these control points in the same locations as a default? this seems like a deal breaker to me, now I went ahead with the exercise by choosing to keep the surface created with the blend surface command knowing that if I were to choose to use the previous option the final shape would be extremely different due to the control point location, and then as soon as I used the pull command, the resulting curve is clearly not in line with the blend from where it was made I thought that this could be corrected if I were to do the operation in the RIGHT side window, expecting that the curve would appear just straight ahead, but na, the curve had the same wrong shape as with the previous attempt, this makes me fill like rhino has something wrong!, now for years I was learning this software and for a time I considered my self as a advanced rhino designer, but then it became clear that I was wrong, rhino has to many flaws and in my opinion these flaws are deal breakers and in my opinion I lost years to a software that is plagued with problems and that seems to openly disregard the years wasted that the student and user are going to go through if they make the mistake of choosing to use this software, to me it seems like rhino is nothing else than a test bed a test platform, to me it seems like the the mc Neel company is selling the good commands, after having put the ugly babies to grow in this platform/test bed named rhino, in this day and age rhino simply has to many flaws that clearly could have been fixed decades ago, the company has the cash and the ppl to fix all these flaws and yet they have not done this, how is it possible that newer programs have way better all around platforms than rhino, if rhino was there decades before them, to me rhino is a test bed, just like we saw that they had Tsplines and later was sold to autodesk, freaking nightmare I have years using the bloody software and yet it still keeps tossing me low balls... cheap bastards fix the damn software!
When you're point-editing to fix the flow something that's intended to be symmetrical (like you did with the corner), would you go back and split and mirror the part, or is eyeballing usually safe?