Show messages:
1-4
5-24
25-27
From: Anthony (PROP_DESIGN)
wow that's fantastic. i clearly made the wrong choice by sticking with rhino. i should have switched to moi when i evaluated it so many years ago now. i was under the impression that both programs were using the same kernel. but you have better filleting and projections. probably a lot more things too. thanks for checking into this. i will definitely be purchasing moi v4 instead of rhino v6.
anthony
From: Michael Gibson
Hi anthony no they use different kernels, the part that is the same is they both use the .3dm file format as the main "native" format. But that's just for data storage not for any modeling calculations.
It is pretty useful to have both available, they each have different strengths and weaknesses. But yes many Rhino operations can tend to fuse segments together though which can be problematic. I've tried to avoid that with MoI.
With them both using the same storage format you can move objects back and forth between them easily.
- Michael
From: Anthony (PROP_DESIGN)
thanks. i think when rhino first started out it may have been using the kernel you are. but then they started with their own kernel. i don't really recall. but whatever the case, moi seems much better at the basics. rhino does have a few features that i thought would be useful. but i'm willing to give those up to stop having modelling problems every single time i use the program. with moi v4 you are adding most of the missing things i was looking for. i think the only other thing is the zebra plots. it would be nice to have the cg location and inertia matrix. but i can live without it. the main thing is being able to make a model without having to do 20 attempts to get something usable. even then, it seems moi on the first attempt is still better than the rhino result.
Show messages:
1-4
5-24
25-27
