Hi Micha,

> So there is no standard way to implement a layer structure to FBX?

Yes as far as I can tell there is no AutoCAD style layer mechanism for FBX format.


> But since nobody asked you for "That's probably not going to be a good match for
> what MoI calls "styles", which would more naturally map to materials" it seems to
> be not so missed.

Other people have asked before for materials to come through in FBX format.


> But if a parent/child object hierarchy is the way to Rhino, than why no use it? ;)

Because it would not work for transferring materials, and setting up materials is the main goal for most of MoI's exports to rendering oriented formats.


> MoI layer color are quite limited to use for rendering materials, new materials
> are need to be setup at the final render package most.

Yes, the main thing that helps is having the materials list and assignments come through.

Rhino's layer mechanism is not able to handle material assignments very well since each object can only be on one single layer, you can't for example have a box in Rhino that is one single joined object but have some different faces of the box on different layers.

Just in general the mesh handling in Rhino is poor, there are many limitations like no per-face vertex normals, no n-gons, etc... - usually to get the best mesh handling you would want to export your mesh data into a more rendering specific program like Cinema4D, Modo, Maya, etc... - Rhino users who do this are already well supported by MoI, I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using Rhino for doing mesh _imports_ when it's not very well suited for that. If you want to use MoI for better mesh exports, then go from Rhino into MoI and then into your rendering program rather than trying to go back into Rhino with the mesh data.

- Michael