Full Version: V4 Wish List

Show messages:  1-16  …  57-76  77-96  97-116  117-136  137-156  157-176  177-196  …  557-575

Michael I want to thank you for your quick and honest reply! Thanks a lot.

> " I mean if I'm working on one area it implicitly means some other feature is not getting worked on at that same time. So it tends to be good for me to work on areas that deliver the most "bang for the buck"."

I totally understand you about this point. As i told you some times ago I'm a (little) ISV and so I fully understand the problems regarding the limited time :)

Let me explain better...
Some of the features I'm asking for, are relative to the fact that I'm using almost exclusively Moi for my nurbs modelling,
while at the same time I also own RhinoV5 and V6 WIP.

But when I bought Rhino, I bought it only for some of its particular commands
(surface continuity, G3 G4 blend, UV point editing, cage, and some other stuff).

So it would be really great for me if Moi could give us these 4-5 features that Rhino has in order to get rid of Rhino,
because I don't love its UI and workflow and I see that in McNell they don't have any intention to change this thing.

I asked you about (at least) G3 blend because IMHO G2 it's not sufficient in some case for a good surface continuity.

Anyway, it's not my intention to bore you with tedious and long discourses,
so I'm confident that you will get all ours wish list and will do the best job!

Thanks for all and have a nice day Michael.

Ciao!

---

Hi Marco, no problem!

re:
> So it would be really great for me if Moi could give us these 4-5 features that
> Rhino has in order to get rid of Rhino, because I don't love its UI and workflow and
> I see that in McNell they don't have any intention to change this thing.

I'm sorry but it's just not practical for me to make it a focus point on replicating specialized Rhino tools into MoI. The fundamental problem with a goal like that is that different people will have a different set of 4-5 features and all combined together you're then talking about an awful lot of features to add in.

It's really more the opposite in fact - because Rhino already has those specific features you need to use, and you can easily work with MoI and Rhino together, that actually makes it all the less of a priority for me to replicate them because you can solve your problem of accessing those features already at the current moment by using MoI and Rhino in combination with each other.

At this time it's still more of a priority for me to work on much more basic things than that in MoI. At some point in the future it could be possible for some of these fancier things to trickle in, but it just doesn't make much sense to focus my effort on G3 surface blends when I still don't have dimensions in MoI as of yet. There's still quite a lot of work left to do in widely used basic functions like that.


> I asked you about (at least) G3 blend because IMHO G2 it's not sufficient in some case
> for a good surface continuity.

Do you have any examples you could send to me? With G2 reflection lines are already smooth, G3 and G4 are getting into very esoteric properties that are difficult to perceive.

Thanks, - Michael

---

Ciao Michael.

Thank you very much Michael for your additional clarifications. Much appreciated!

> "..The fundamental problem with a goal like that is that different people will have a different set of 4-5 features and all combined together you're then talking about an awful lot of features to add in."

Aaaaahhhh LOL LOL :)

I apologize...you're totally right!! Customers' desires are almost like the wind....supremely difficult to catch!!

> "It's really more the opposite in fact - because Rhino already has those specific features..."

Ok. So the brutal truth for me it's that I have to surrender to use Rhino for that things :)
(Luckily, the are funny things like Fusion360...)


> "Do you have any examples you could send to me? With G2 reflection lines are already smooth, G3 and G4 are getting into very esoteric properties that are difficult to perceive."

ASAP I will post some example of what I want to say regarding G3 vs G2.

Thanks again and have a nice day.

- Marco (mkdm)

---

Hello,

My whish list:

1. Groups
2. Instancing
3. Dimensions (improve Max's Dimensions)
4. Ghost mode view (semi-transparent objects)
5. Joint mechanism (don't know if this could fit or make sense in Moi's)

Thanks.

Carlos

---

Hi Michael ...

My priority remains: dimensioning and Text that is not made up of 3d solids.

Yes, I have Rhino and it is not a big chore to switch back and forth but I would rather not have to.

2nd on my list are line types.

Printing would be nice.

Thank you for MoI.

cheers,
eric

---

So my biggest wish is 64-bit, a client sent me a huge data sets(I talking entire buildings...)! Also if the viewport can handle huge data would be nice, being able to move around and work on huge data is a must once you go 64-bit. Fusion360 still struggles in the latter area.

---

Michael, could you please add a "Create cool model" button to MoI V4. I'd appreciate that.

Thanks in advance,

---

@ Metin
Try Shift + Ctrl + Alt + Click on the Icon Options (Bottom right screen)

---

Hello,

while playing with the API, I try to use the freehand sketch tool, but using it, allways gives no satisfactory result. It's so final. So I tried to improve the behavior, but its very difficult to implement in JS. Nevertheless I want to make a proposal for maybe v4 or v5. The sketch curve isn't finished until I make a gesture or until a timer runs out.




If not that, a G2-Patch tool for 3-4 sided gaps in joined surfaces.

Have a nice day
Karsten

---

Frenchy: :D

---

Karsten, good suggestion, to be able to correct parts of a freehand curve. That'd be great.

---

Hello Metin,

yes - my problem is, that I have a pen-tablet, but I never use the Sketch, becaus e- after I've made the Sketch, I always make a rebuild, switch on the control points and move them around:-(
I've written a script for sketch/stroke manipulation, but the result is still unsatisfying (as shown)
Anyway it would a cool feature for tablet users and would build a bridge to a more natural workflow on tablets.

Have a nice day
Karsten

---

Hi Karsten, I've thought before about trying to make a curve shaping tool that worked sort of like an airbrush where you could apply multiple airbrush strokes and then I'd work on fitting a curve through the densest region of it. Then maybe you could alter it by erasing the edges of some airbrush areas or applying more airbrush strokes on top of other areas.

Unfortunately it will require a lot of very time consuming experimental work to make that happen so I'm not likely to be able to get to it very soon.

Right now if you want more control than what the current sketch can do, I'd recommend drawing with control points instead.

- Michael

---

Hello Michael,
I'm sure you've already thought about it. And I agree with you, that you have to do some more important things at the moment, but I believe it would fit perfectly to Moi's intuitive concept.
Many thanks
and have a nice day
Karsten

---

Hello Michael,

Might it be convenient to introduce a feature to manage a user-defined list of observation vantages for the 3D viewport?
It may be useful, between edits, to have the ability to reset the perspective view to that of a prior screenshot.

MOI is the best software experience.
-- Mindset

---

Hi Mindset, yes that's often times called a "named view" or "saved view" and it is something I want to add. I've been thinking about making a new section in the Scene Browser that could hold some "lists of things" like this, such as saved views, cplanes, and maybe background bitmaps should go under there as well.

- Michael

---

Hi Michael,

My top 3:

1. Support for nested groups, for example to preserve the hierarchy of imported STEP data
2. Support for nested group hierarchy in the skp export
3. Instancing

Thanks for your commitment and excellent work. MoI is an indispensable tool in our workflow.

Happy Thanksgiving!

---

Michael,

No doubt you have been monitoring the development of Project Elephant. I am especially excited by recent embryonic development of paneling functionality made possible by "polyLoft" & "mFlowObj" nodes.

This advancement could be fully unleashed with an extension to the "Flow" option : "Flow Between"

Instead of flowing over a compound nurbs surface, the item would be flowed between an inner and outer planar target surfaces. This functionality incorporated into a version of "mFlowObj" node would bring true paneling tools to MOI3D. (although probably not perceivable in below image: FlowPaneling.jpg, the flowed units all distort in one direction) The outer surface may simply be an offset of the inner surface, however it may also deviate dramatically from it (smooth inside/undulating outside)

I recall you stating in an earlier post that paneling functionality involve complicated mathematics:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1753.4
however one part of the problem has already been solved by node editor (the populating of planar facets of a mesh surface).

I love this software, and would like to see its popularity grow and I do think that this one area for attracting a whole new customer base.

Let me know if any of this is unclear.

Regards
-James

Image Attachments:
FlowBetween.jpg  FlowPaneling.jpg 

---

Hi James, it's probably more likely that kind of deformation would fit in a "Cage edit" command, rather than as a 2 surface to 2 surface flow. For Flow I'm not sure how Flow could incorporate those without negative consequences for the existing workflow, since picking 2 surfaces would likely need additional selection steps.

- Michael

---

Hi Michael,

To clarify what I meant I attached a 3 images. The first image shows an attempt to create a woven pattern flowed over a compound surface. The flowing of planar surface or curves with node editor works brilliantly; however flowing solids produces undesirable distortions (as shown).

The second image is taken from a "Paracloud Gem" manual. Their solution is an elegant one: define a bounding zone of deformation by front and back faces. I am proposing something similar.

>>For Flow I'm not sure how Flow could incorporate those without negative consequences for the existing workflow, since picking 2 surfaces would likely need additional selection steps.<<

Selecting the item to flow may be just as it is now.. Only the origin base surface or curve need be selected because the upper could be extrapolated as instantiation of base at the height of the item to be flowed.

There would however be additional step to select second target surface, but this would only be necessary if a checkbox is first clicked prior to selection of first target surface. See third image.

Please let me know if this is at all unclear.

James

Image Attachments:
2ndTarget.gif  ParacloudGEM.jpg  weave.jpg 

---

Show messages:  1-16  …  57-76  77-96  97-116  117-136  137-156  157-176  177-196  …  557-575