Thanks a lot for this video, it's really well explained and very helpful. I was just wondering, what the advantage of using an intersection curve to trim the surfaces is compared to directly trimming with the surfaces themselves?
Very often there is no advantage, however when the geometry is more challenging and you want to make sure of the correct result I find it useful to visualise the trimming curve. Also, in this case, if the trimming curve is not closed then I’ll know that my geometry hasn’t built correctly. Hope this helps and thanks for watching!
Agreed, as much as I enjoy Rhino I find myself never picking it up for *any* part that would require iteration on form or fit. I’m curious as to how pro Rhino users solve this problem. Coming from parametric CAD myself, I find the idea of using Rhino for manufacturing to be completely terrifying, lol
Yup. If Rhino was parametric I'd probably use it as my main CAD software in a heartbeat. But as it stands every single design we start requires change and iteration further down the line and I don't have the time to rebuild surfaces every time that happens. I've never really understood how people use Rhino for product / industrial design where big changes are part of the design journey.
Hi, @eobet Perhaps I didn’t make this clear enough in the video but the assumption here is that this is the final design and we’ve spoken to the toolmaker/moulder and have agreed the draft and other moulding details. If this wasn’t the case then building the whole of the A surfaces as single-span (Class A) continuity matched patches wouldn’t be a good workflow.
@hagus42 Hi, as in the answer to @eobet, I think the point here is that I’m starting with known information about the draft and fit and have surfaces that have been carefully sculpted and matched and so the premise here is that the ‘A’ surfaces are fixed. If I was doing this and wanted to build in some variability for the draft angles I would set up some simple curves that can be aligned perpendicular to rails to build the ‘sides' of the form. For this type of preliminary model I’d probably build simpler geometry with tangent continuous blends that would be simpler to adjust. With the final design as shown in this video it's important to understand that if the draft changed from say 2 degrees to 4 degrees its not just a case of canting the sides inwards by another two degrees - we’d actually need a different shaped curve to give the correct aesthetics - because just changing the angle would affect the curvature continuous blend between the top and sides and make this too ‘pointed’. This is, of course, just my opinion but I have been a professional industrial designer for nearly 40 years and taken many injection moulded parts to production.
@ That’s a good comment and I appreciate it. I am nowhere near as experienced, but my own parts have benefited greatly from the “safety net” of being able to go back into a constrained sketch or feature tree and just tweak and angle and have the whole thing recalculate. I think the difference with Rhino is that you have to put little “hedges” into the design to make sure you’re not backed into a corner where you have to redo things from scratch, whereas with parametric CAD it’s just a bit easier for a less experienced person. Having said that I’ve blown up my share of feature trees and had to start from scratch there too :) Perhaps that could be good content for a future video. I think it’s fine that Rhino does things differently, the gap for me is that I don’t know how to make my models “defensible” to change rather than a one way street where I feel stuck.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
For more details on this video please visit rhino3d.co.uk/news/industrial-and-product-design-detailing-with-rhino/
Finally a tutorial like this!
Glad you found it useful!
Thanks a lot for this video, it's really well explained and very helpful. I was just wondering, what the advantage of using an intersection curve to trim the surfaces is compared to directly trimming with the surfaces themselves?
Very often there is no advantage, however when the geometry is more challenging and you want to make sure of the correct result I find it useful to visualise the trimming curve. Also, in this case, if the trimming curve is not closed then I’ll know that my geometry hasn’t built correctly. Hope this helps and thanks for watching!
Thanks.... and the part 2 ?
Part 2 is coming in early December, thanks for watching!
And now the tool maker requests a draft change, what do you do in Rhino? HOURS of work vs minutes in a parametric CAD software.
Agreed, as much as I enjoy Rhino I find myself never picking it up for *any* part that would require iteration on form or fit. I’m curious as to how pro Rhino users solve this problem. Coming from parametric CAD myself, I find the idea of using Rhino for manufacturing to be completely terrifying, lol
Yup. If Rhino was parametric I'd probably use it as my main CAD software in a heartbeat. But as it stands every single design we start requires change and iteration further down the line and I don't have the time to rebuild surfaces every time that happens. I've never really understood how people use Rhino for product / industrial design where big changes are part of the design journey.
Hi, @eobet Perhaps I didn’t make this clear enough in the video but the assumption here is that this is the final design and we’ve spoken to the toolmaker/moulder and have agreed the draft and other moulding details. If this wasn’t the case then building the whole of the A surfaces as single-span (Class A) continuity matched patches wouldn’t be a good workflow.
@hagus42 Hi, as in the answer to @eobet, I think the point here is that I’m starting with known information about the draft and fit and have surfaces that have been carefully sculpted and matched and so the premise here is that the ‘A’ surfaces are fixed. If I was doing this and wanted to build in some variability for the draft angles I would set up some simple curves that can be aligned perpendicular to rails to build the ‘sides' of the form. For this type of preliminary model I’d probably build simpler geometry with tangent continuous blends that would be simpler to adjust. With the final design as shown in this video it's important to understand that if the draft changed from say 2 degrees to 4 degrees its not just a case of canting the sides inwards by another two degrees - we’d actually need a different shaped curve to give the correct aesthetics - because just changing the angle would affect the curvature continuous blend between the top and sides and make this too ‘pointed’. This is, of course, just my opinion but I have been a professional industrial designer for nearly 40 years and taken many injection moulded parts to production.
@ That’s a good comment and I appreciate it. I am nowhere near as experienced, but my own parts have benefited greatly from the “safety net” of being able to go back into a constrained sketch or feature tree and just tweak and angle and have the whole thing recalculate. I think the difference with Rhino is that you have to put little “hedges” into the design to make sure you’re not backed into a corner where you have to redo things from scratch, whereas with parametric CAD it’s just a bit easier for a less experienced person. Having said that I’ve blown up my share of feature trees and had to start from scratch there too :)
Perhaps that could be good content for a future video. I think it’s fine that Rhino does things differently, the gap for me is that I don’t know how to make my models “defensible” to change rather than a one way street where I feel stuck.