MOI really is amazing! I downloaded it to use for Second Life and I am loving it. Having used Rhino in the past I notice all the similarities and really enjoy the super intuitive GUI but I too notice a lack of point clouds. Coming from the Rhino background & seeing all the similarities, I really expected to be able to tweak my objects using point clouds. I really really think point clouds should be added because they allow us less experienced folks to create beautiful things without having to know every little detail of 3D design.

Hi Max, I'm glad that you are enjoying using MoI!

re: point clouds - it is actually possibly to turn on control points to edit surfaces in MoI, but similar to Rhino you can't turn on points for some kinds of objects, specifically objects made up of joined surfaces where the surfaces do not have a common point structure along the shared edge.

This is to prevent pulling 2 adjacent surfaces apart in different directions which would open up a gap along what is supposed to be a shared sealed edge.

If you use Edit / Separate to break your joined object into individual surface objects, then you can turn on control points for those separate surfaces.

Here is a post with a more detailed explanation of why you can't edit surface points for some joined objects:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=759.12


Because different surfaces within a solid can have totally different control point structures (see the plane / cylinder example in the link above), NURBS solids just don't have the kind of "push and pull on point cloud" kind of manipulation that a polygon mesh structure has.

If you want to do a lot of that kind of point manipulation type modeling, really a polygon-based modeler like Modo, Silo, XSI, etc... are designed around that kind of process, it isn't really a focus area for MoI.

The process in MoI is kind of more like constructing objects from drawn profiles instead of squishing a point cage around. Sometimes I compare the MoI method to be more like drawing or illustration, and the polygon point manipulation method to be more like sculpting. Each one has different strengths and problems, but what you are describing there sounds more like it would line up with the polygon method.

- Michael

Hi Petr, I added your wishes to the wiki page here: http://moi3d.com/wiki/Wishlist.


> it could look like toogle text label Radius/Diameter for Circle command prompt.

Which current label would you put the toggle on? Normally I would think of using a toggle like that as a way to flip between a couple of mutually exclusive options...

But I do hate making that dialog so big and complicated though - that's really the only reason why I haven't added that option yet, it is not very difficult to actually implement.

One thing that I have thought of is to make applying the updated display of those "advanced" options more fully automatic instead of needing that "Update mesh" button, then I could throw out that button and add another line in there without increasing the size of the dialog.

- Michael

Hi Iwan, thanks! I also added yours to the wiki, except for curve text and history.

Like Schbeurd mentioned, curve text is already implemented, when you are in the Text command, there is an option for it right above the Done and Cancel buttons, it says "Create: Solids", if you click the dropdown there you will find options for "Create: Surfaces", which will create flat planar surfaces, and "Create: Curves", which will create just the curves like you want.

The sort of basics of history are also already working - for example if you create a lofted surface through some curves, you can then turn on the control points for those curves and edit them and the loft will update.

There are some kinds of operations where history will not work on though, like booleans and fillets. I do want to extend history to work on more types of commands in the future though. Is that what you meant?


> - stronger fillets operations : for example a fillet with a too high
> value should produce automatically the biggest fillet possible, it should not fail.

This one is unfortunately quite difficult to achieve. I kept it on the wishlist, but it will likely be a long time before it will be possible.


> - multi-threaded operations if possible

This one is also pretty difficult to achieve for everything, however one area that I plan to focus on is making the display mesh calculation process multi-threaded.

I think that rebuild, extract isocrv, and mapping coordinate enhancements are pretty likely to happen for v2.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

>>Which current label would you put the toggle on?

The "Angle" label, the slider would apply to the "Maximum distance" option, then.
I admit this options aren't mutually exclusive ones. But when I set a distance to surface for meshing in Rhino, I choose very small value like 0.005 units, so I guess, in such situation, the Angle doesn't influence the process of meshing.




Petr

_Driving Dimensions, capture design intent at any product development stage.

_2D Design environment, Associative Drawing environment to enable design changes, as well as geometry creation and modification, from within drawing views.

_3D Annotation capabilities and highlighting tools to clearly communicate and document design changes.

_Design Tree, A single design environment for working on an assembly and its individual components, parts can be easily merged together or split to individuals piece parts as the design evolves, hierarchy can be changed by Dragging & Dropping component designations around in the Design Tree.

_And last but not least a script or export wizard for maxwellrender?

Thanks.

Hi Petr, I see what you mean. But distances are kind of difficult to associate with sliders, it is hard to pick a min and max value that applies to all objects since it is dependent on the scale of the object.

So I was thinking that the maximum chord height type control would be just an additional input of its own.

One other difficulty is what to name it - calling it something like "Max distance" might lead to confusion with the "Divide larger than" style maximum edge length, which is also a distance.

Maybe I would just call it "Max chord height"...

Hmmm or maybe "Deviation tolerance" ?

- Michael

Hi yannada, I have added your comments to the wiki.

But the things you are describing generally sound exactly like some other existing solid modeling systems like SolidWorks, Alibre, Pro/E, etc...

My general plan for MoI is not really to go so much exactly in that direction.

I just think that if you need software that works exactly like one of those existing solid modeling systems, then why not use one of those ones that already does all this stuff?

It's really more interesting for me to push MoI in a direction that is not exactly the same as already existing software.

However, having said that, there will be things that I want to add to MoI that will cover at least some of the areas that you mention - particularly the area of communication.

- Michael

Spot on Micheal,
Yes features are a collection from softwares that I have used and I fund them necessary for architecture and product design projects.
SolidWorks User since 2000, feels like yesterday.
But the good news 3 of us join forces to set a new design studio, so we looking at new tools .
We will be focusing on Concept and Viz of projects and outsourcing engineering...
Rhino is a very strong candidate(extensive Import/Export capabilities).
But as I mention before Moi is Fresh, Addictive, Original in Concept, and most important your knowledge and support, Priceless.

thanks

Hi yannada, congratulations on starting your new design studio, that is cool!

re: your wishlist - I guess the question I have is, what if I did implement all the items on your wishlist so that MoI behaved the same as SolidWorks. What would the benefit be to you? I mean, can't you already use SolidWorks to perform all the operations that SolidWorks does?

- Michael

I should say i did not want to bring any confusion,I guess I was using someone else terminology.
I Think I should seat back and enjoy the ride.

Why not use SW?
1st price tag
2nd Constrains, Parametric, NOT where I want to go, I had enough.....
From test I did Moi is Much faster in most cases. (No Mechanical staff here, WE KEEP IT SIMPLE)

Hi yannada,

> I Think I should seat back and enjoy the ride.

Please don't hesitate to post your wishes! :) I'd rather have more information than less...

Just if something doesn't quite line up with the direction that I currently see MoI going in, I would rather sort of get that out in the open more, that way if a lot of people see problems with it I might be able to hear something about it.


> 1st price tag

I thought this might be a big reason! :) But it is just not a very big motivator for me to do exactly the same stuff as something else just at a lower price...

- Michael

>>Maybe I would just call it "Max chord height"...

I agree with you in that... -Petr

I agree, it shouldn't fail, but... What is the "biggest fillet possible"? I am posting a 3dm file example with an object on which MoI didn't manage to create a fillet properly. However, I was able to manually trim and edit those surfaces to get a nice result. So from my point of view, fillet should lead to usable result at least...

Petr

Hi,

Maybe an option to have a 2d fillet gizmo adjuster (there is something like that in Rhino I think) could be great.

Regards,

Marc

A cool fillet will be a fillet "along a curve" so with it some versatility possibilities :)
Or better a fillet with 2 curves ! One top, and one down
Here juste one :the straight edge and one curve

Good idea Pilou!

Filleting is definetely a place where one can think of new solutions.
I whish se to elliptical fillets, where you specify two radiuses for each side of the fillets.

Very nice program, I am impressed,
Fredrik

Very interesting Concept Pilou!

Regards,

Marc

Hi Pilou, normally that is called a "Variable radius fillet", and it should be something that I can add in. The geometry library that I'm using supports it, I just didn't have time to figure out a UI for it for version 1.

Normally the curve is defined by specifying different radius numbers at spots along the edge, but it is an interesting idea to define it by a profile curve directly like you are showing there, that would be some kind of "scaling rail" type option.

I've added this to the wiki wishlist.

- Michael

Just tried the shelling on some basic computer mouse shapes, works like a dream!
One thing i noticed though is that the offset surfaces have many more conrol points than the originals. Could i be possible to have an option fo keeping the same number of points, or at least getting the number down? At the expense of precision off course.

The fillet with G2 is giving good results too, :)

- Fredrik