Hi Brian,

> Is there some logic I need to know to explain
> the different results between the "None" and "freeform" settings ?

You would see more of the logic behind these options if your object to array was rectangular in shape.
It's explained quite well Here in the online help.

Cheers

Hi Brian,

Yes, there is a clear logic behind. It has to do with a rotation of object to array during its sliding along a curve:

Freeform: Objects are rotated in three dimensions as they are arrayed along the path curve.

None: The objects do not rotate as they are arrayed, but remain in their original orientation.

Flat: Flat will only do rotations about the world Z axis (not a consistent up-direction relative to the construction plane, though. But it is already on the wishlist).








Petr

Thanks.
Think it needed those particular screen shots to get it to sink in.
Brian

I've playing around with the new beta (the newest one) and unfortunately I've noticed a lot of weird behaviors in almost all the complex operations (boolean, trim, join, fillet, merge). I kept getting extra planar surfaces in the middle of fillets, missing patches when trying to join two surfaces, and in general, the sensation that the app is struggling more than usual in doing his calculations. Looks like the new library has got more bugs than expected. Anyway, the Shell command seems to have improved without drawbacks!
Cheers
Daniele

I don't normally mess with beta releases (of anything), but this one... Math functions and 'extent, count' on array? Nice!!! :)

-Nick

All right, looks like I have zeroed in on the problem here, I should be able to make a new beta tonight that is fixed up.

- Michael

Thanks, Michael ...

Feet and inches works like a charm!

I hope for Rhino 4 layer and linetype compatibility in the future ... Fluid movement between MoI and Rhino is important to me.

I do find MoI generally more fluid for a lot of modeling ...

cheers,
eric

Hi Paolo,

> "typing in numeric expressions"
>
> It works fine with the circles command.
>
> With lines i typed 2+2 space 5 space 0 enter,
> nothing happend.

Yes, like Petr mentioned the expressions were for single-value entries (like circle radius, offset distance, etc...) and not for x,y,z point coordinates.

But for the updated Aug-4 beta I have added some initial support for expressions for points as well.

The way it works is if your decimal point separator is not a , character then you can separate the coordinates by commas like: 2+2,5,0

Otherwise a second method is to put ( ) parenthesis around each coordinate, like: (2+2)(5)(0).

Currently the way you originally tried with pieces separated by spaces will not work. I also want to support spaces inside the expressions themselves so that is a more difficult one to support. But I'll try to take a look and see if I can add that in.

- Michael

Hi Alan,

you wrote:
> However, one area where I find the workflow kind of difficult
> to get used to is the lack of layers. Will this functionality be
> added? (sorry if this has been mentioned before)

Yup, this is definitely an area that is going to get added for v2.

It looks like I will probably be focusing attention on it just after I get back from SIGGRAPH.

It's a pretty in-depth area that will involve a lot of UI work, so it will probably take a little while before it is complete, like it will probably stretch out over a couple of months and a few beta releases.

But it is definitely planned to be a major focus area for v2, I just haven't quite gotten started on it yet.

- Michael

Hi Kevin,

you wrote:
> Great stuff Michael. Some surfaces that wouldn't join or fillet
> using the previous V2 beta, now work fine.

Aside from just bug fixes for this beta Join has a new approach for its tolerance measurement, where for larger objects it will scale up the joining tolerance (the maximum distance that edges are allowed to be apart before they will be glued together) to be relative to the size of the object's bounding boxes.

That can help a lot with joining objects that are of a larger unit size.


> I'm really looking forward to seeing some layers and a
> construction/work plane in upcoming releases.

These will definitely be coming! I actually wanted to get a construction plane mechanism in for this release but I just did not manage to find enough time to squeeze it in yet.

- Michael

Hi Daniele,

you wrote:
> I've playing around with the new beta (the newest one) and
> unfortunately I've noticed a lot of weird behaviors in almost all
> the complex operations (boolean, trim, join, fillet, merge). I kept
> getting extra planar surfaces in the middle of fillets, missing
> patches when trying to join two surfaces, and in general, the
> sensation that the app is struggling more than usual in doing
> his calculations. Looks like the new library has got more bugs
> than expected.

Just wanted to double-check with you - all of this seems to have been related to a single bug, but which was in a function which was used pretty heavily by those complex operations.

Did the Aug-4 release correct all these problems? Or do you still have a sense that things are not right?

- Michael

Hi Michael,
yes, the new 4th August beta is working fine for me, so far. Although I haven't yet had the chance to intensively test it with a heavy modeling project, the "first time" bug still hasn't showed up. I assume that fixing that single bug pretty much fixed all those weird behaviours once and (hopefully) for all.
Thanks for the feedback, as always!
Cheers Daniele