Hi Greg,

> (What if I get something wrong, what if a requirement
> changes, what if, what if, what if...)

Well, you just delete pieces that you don't want and draw some replacement pieces...

When drawing and creating things happens very quickly it's not such a big deal to redraw particular pieces.

However having said that, I do want to add a deeper history function in the future. It's a pretty involved area so it's hard to know exactly when that will happen though.

In the meantime if having the ability to do history updates is a vitally important thing for your particular workflow, then you should probably be using some other program that puts a lot of emphasis on that type of process as its main function. Of course a kind of more cumbersome drawing and modeling process that tends to make you go through more steps is usually a part of packages that put a lot of emphasis on that kind of stuff - for MoI it is much more of a priority to have drawing and modeling feel really quick and light and not have a lot of steps and processes to go through.

But if you don't want to do quick modeling and drawing and you instead want to do more heavily planned and constrained layouts that can be tweaked with history, there are quite a lot of CAD programs out there that are focused on doing that already, like SolidWorks, SolidEdge, Alibre, Pro/E, etc.. etc... etc... MoI is actually focused on a different feel than that partly because there are already so many choices you can use for doing that style of modeling. Instead of trying to make MoI a kind of clone of programs that already handle that style of stuff I wanted to make it have a kind of different focus.

It may be a good idea for you to use MoI in combination with one of those other programs - maybe use MoI for your early process stuff where you want to draw more freely and use one of those parametric MCAD programs when you get to more nailed down designs...

But it's important to use the right tool for your particular job - if history is a major criteria for you, then MoI is probably not the right tool for the particular task that you're trying to do - it's not really a focus for MoI to be an exact drop-in replacement for a production MCAD system like SolidWorks or things like that. If you're trying to treat it like that you may be using the wrong tool for your job, kind of like trying to pound in nails with a screwdriver or something like that.

- Michael

I have heard, that Icem Surf, now a part of Catia, has been made meanwhile fully historical.

In my opinion a history should be more important then circular selection.

Rudl

Hi Rudl,

> In my opinion a history should be more important then circular selection.

They're not really comparable though in the quantity of work involved to implement them - there is much much more work involved for history.

- Michael

And we have yet local history of a function ;)
It's not so bad!
Else you can use this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEbHjpqpL-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IspWcu_RO8U
but not sure that is the same price and same use ;)

Hallo Pilou,

I know the history, and I like it´s behaviour because of it´s easyness very much.

RUdl

Hi Pilou,

just checked the Creo Elements Pro page and to my surprise the fully featured Home Vers. for non-commercial use is cheaper than MoI!

http://store.ptc.com/store?Action=DisplayProductDetailsPage&SiteID=ptc&Locale=de_DE&Env=BASE&productID=210631300

Regards
Stefan

I don't know if a Student version is different than a personal learning edition where you have some limitations!
Where you have just the "modeler" section and not the applications!
You can import Moi files inside as STL format ;)

Use is less fluent than Moi ;)

PS Moi has also a student version ;) http://www.studica.com/MOI3D/

Hi Pilou,

yes, but a student vers. is for students only and not for hobbyist, and the Creo Student vers. is even more cheaper than the home vers. which, as understood, are full vers...;-)

Anyways, thanks for the link!

Regards
Stefan

There's another program called Space Claim which apparently does similar after-development editing and accepts a miriad of file types. http://www.spaceclaim.com/en/default.aspx

I'd like to see these packages actually work on the sort of geometry we typically do before believing their claims. ;)

The simple truth is, when it comes to beautiful forms that can be built in MoI (or my workplace standard Solidworks) changes rarely involve the moving of a warts (this is the Industrial Designer Snob term for anything tacked onto the base form) but instead involve having to grow, shrink, stretch or otherwise readjust the initial beautiful form so that it fits the new requirements but remains both beautiful and tightly numerically controlled, and drafted etc etc. (Hence the reason that the tightly constrained Solidworks is not the best choice for the sort of free flowing surfaces MoI can handle with ease...)

I just have to look at MoI the way I do Artrage verses Illustrator. In the former you've got all the tools to accuracy too, but you just have to be willing to commit and live with it! (Fear of committment issues here.)

-Greg

And the other thing is that you must generally enable/disable many menus (pop up etc..) during the process ;)

Hello,

If he is looking for history in SpaceClaim he won't find it. I use MoI and SCE together, they make a pretty good duo.

Hello,

I would prefer a drag over selection, or maybe a lasso option before a circular one. My thinking is you would still have to be just as precise in your selection start point as with a box selection, it's not making things any faster.

I'm with you WSTexo.

A lasso, especially a multi-click (as apposed to click and drag) selection type would be terrific!

Hi Greg - SpaceClaim does have a lot of useful editing stuff in it - it's called a "direct modeler" or "history free" modeler which is a kind of different system than a history based one.

Basically instead of having a list of instructions on how the model was constructed like a history based modeler, it instead analyzes just the existing geometry and decides how to extend or rebuild pieces as needed when you pull faces around.

One thing that's really good about this system is that it works on any kind of imported file.

But it's also kind of more oriented towards editing more mechanical semi-blocky-ish type stuff - not so much for modifying swoopy flowing surfaces or things of that nature.

- Michael

I've been wondering about the symmetry thing. I've been wondering this whole time if I was missing something obvious.

top 5
symmetry, svg, collada, "lighting options/paintingbyuvmaps/indigo plugin", goz plugin (laughing... I know, I know, not a chance)

Southpaw,
If you use the Mirror option or flip a copy of an object with the handles, tweaking or moving the primary object will cause the mirrored effect to happen to the copy.

Symmetry as a d-sub modeler uses is really not feasible in MoI
unless 1) you were allowed to edit surface and curve points forever (there seems to be a point where an object doesn't let you see the points anymore), and also made larger concentration of points more manageable such as with a soft election or rubber band method.
..and 2) or MoI employs the use of Components or active clones where changing one changes all, including additions of objects within the component (even it those clones were "mirrored").

Mike,

I really don't understand all that well. I've run into about 4 types of modelers, nurbs, polygon, patch, and voxel, and I admit that as I write this, I don't know many of the limitations of each. MoI seems to be the only modeler built for a tablet and not "adjusted for use with a tablet" or "use tablet when sculpting & uv painting". MoI simply has a better user interface than most things out there.

Saying that, I still don't understand why in MoI can build a non-organic shape quicker than most places and yet can't seem to model a human to save my life. And when I pop into polygon modeling, I can have a human shape up quickly and keep carving it down to make it better and better. And I've yet to use patch, though I've never seen a human face made so fast in my life as with patch. And voxels seem to be the uber detailed organic type of modeling. I'm not sure why the tools work better for certain things, I'm really not. I'll keep reading the explanations, though I'm not sure when it will all just make sense to me.

Hi Mike,

> (there seems to be a point where an object doesn't let you
> see the points anymore)

You'll always be able to see them if you use Edit > Separate to break things into individual surfaces.

It's when you have 2 surfaces that are joined along a trim curve boundary that you won't be able to see the control points - that's to avoid you pulling some points of one surface and opening up a gap in what used to be a joined common edge.

See this FAQ entry for some more explanation:
http://moi3d.com/faq#Q:_Why_does_show_points_work_for_some_objects_but_not_others.3F

- Michael

Woo-yah! :-)
Thanks Michael! It's really nice to discover new things about MoI. That'll come in handy.

Southpaw...

I think Michael will have a more concise analogy of the differences in the technology.

But, from my knowledge, the differences between the types of modeling technologies are:

D-SUBS: Based on polygons, are "cages" defined by points that are subdivided until a smooth shape is produced.
You can add endless complexity to the cages at the expense of adding an exponential number of polygons.
Editing can be kept fast by working in "low subdivision" modes where all you care about are manipulating the cage control points.
D-SUBS allow for complex organic creation with ease of editing. But if you want smooth polygon surfaces, you'll have to up the subdivisions.

VOXELS: Based on arranging points that are filled in with "bubbles" or surface thickness. This is how Z-Brush works.
With these modelers you can create freakishly complex organic models - even down to goose bumps. Polygon meshes can be interpolated later for use in layout and rendering apps.
VOXELS allow you to create complex, life-like models, but not the type of models needed for manufacturing where tolerances are high.

NURBS: Which MoI is based on, uses spline based math to build liquid smooth curved surfaces from relatively few control points.
The trade off with NURBS surfaces is that you can create a nearly limitless number of polygons that conform to the desired surface with a high degree of accuracy, but you lose the ability to model high detail, convolutions and bumps as you can with D-SUBS.
So, MoI's simplicity and ease of use is based on that premise.
NURBS are geared towards manufacturing and product creation, where mechanical accuracy are required.

Hi southpaw,

> Saying that, I still don't understand why in MoI can build a
> non-organic shape quicker than most places and yet can't
> seem to model a human to save my life.

Well, humans are a much different kind of shape than a mechanical object.

Mechanical objects are full of cut out areas and things like exact circular holes.

If you look at a human body, you won't find anything similar to an exact circular hole on it anywhere - it's a more sculpted form that doesn't have any perfectly straight parts to it.

Because there are no perfectly straight parts on a human body form, that also means that it is not defined very well just by a profile curve - sure you can draw a profile curve like the side profile of a face with a nose etc... but that profile does not "drive" the shape of the face - for example the nose is a small feature and quickly goes away as soon as you move by a small angle away from the side profile.

That is again very different than a mechanical shape - a mechanical shape is very well defined by side profile curves.

MoI is generally focused on a method of drawing shapes where you create profile curves to generate surfaces and also to cut them - that method is a great match for mechanical shapes but not a great fit for a human body.

Something that works more like sculpting where you are manipulating a 3d point cage (like you'll find in a polygon modeler) tends to work better for human body shapes, but then does not fit mechanical shapes very well.


> I'm not sure why the tools work better for certain things, I'm really not.

Well, I'd say basically - if the object that you're working on is well defined by some profile curves (meaning a relatively small number of profile curves can generate the shape, some by creating extrusions or revolutions or things like that and others by cutting away material), then that's the kind of shape that will work really well with MoI.

If the object does not have any distinct driving profile curves to it (note just taking some random snapshot from one particular angle does not necessarily make for a profile that actually "drives" the shape) then you'll be more in sculpting and poly modeling (or voxel) territory.


Hope this helps!

- Michael