Is Moi geometry better than Rhino? 1-2  3-22  23-26

 From: Anna Pheiffenberger (ANNA) 14 Oct 2009  (3 of 26)
 2991.3 In reply to 2991.2 "Yup, it is definitely something that I'm interested in. But it is going to take quite a bit of work to make it happen, so I'm not sure when it will happen, it may be a while." This is definately something you have to elaborate on:)????? would it be some kind of a new mix of nurbs and subd...box modeling techniques??? Thanks for a good answer on the other question:)

 From: Frenchy Pilou (PILOU) 14 Oct 2009  (4 of 26)
 Can we have an image of something "Manifold" and something "No Manifold" ? --- Pilou Is beautiful that please without concept! My Gallery

 From: BurrMan 14 Oct 2009  (5 of 26)
 2991.5 In reply to 2991.4 One representation: each edge should be used by exactly two faces (not more, not less). Non: Non: Manifold: I'll look for other examples. It is a mathematical concept. EDITED: 19 Jun 2012 by BURRMAN

 From: Michael Gibson 14 Oct 2009  (6 of 26)
 2991.6 In reply to 2991.5 Hi Burr, normally the case where the edge is solitary and only on one face is not considered non-manifold (like in your second image). But yes the first example you have there is a good one, where having those 2 boxes combined together into one structure would require that one edge to be shared between 4 faces instead of only 2 faces. Internally the geometry library that MoI uses allows for such things and it tends to help to make booleans work better since things can be combined all together into one unified structure before it focuses on eliminating different parts of it. There is a kind of normalization process that MoI does to any non-manifold results after the calculations are done, to make sure they are split up into different manifold chunks. The equivalent for faces is having it possible to have one structure that has a face in common between 2 different solid regions, like this: - Michael Attachments:

 From: Michael Gibson 14 Oct 2009  (7 of 26)
 2991.7 In reply to 2991.3 Hi Anna, > This is definately something you have to elaborate on:)????? > would it be some kind of a new mix of nurbs and subd...box > modeling techniques??? Well, it is hard to elaborate on it when it does not exist yet! :) I just won't know a lot of particular details until I get a chunk of time to work on it in the future at some point. But I think ideally it would be great to have a sub-d method of creating a base surface, as just another option to construct surfaces. Like in addition to sweep, network, extrude, etc... it would be good to be able to have a "sub-d" cage surface that generated a NURBS surface. One of the difficulties though is that sub-d / box modeling has a fairly different kind of toolset than NURBS modeling, so it would mean introducing quite a number of brand new tools to work on the polygon cage. That means it will take quite a bit of work and that's why I don't know when it will happen. It still has yet to be determined if it is even possible to introduce all those additional specialized tools into MoI without making MoI become overly bloated. - Michael

 From: Kurt (KURTF) 14 Oct 2009  (8 of 26)
 2991.8 In reply to 2991.7 This technology was explored in another software called EIM, the ElectricImage Modeler. It was quite popular, though the company ended up canceling the software due to licensing problems with Spatial. They're currently planning to resurrect it. What's nice about subD's within a NURBS framework is that you can sculpt using your familiar Polygon subD cage techniques, but also make use of NURBS boolean and trim functions (depending on how it's implemented). Also the final polygon mesh can be exceptionally clean, with density set by the meshing function. Malcolm Thain was the acknowledged master of this 'sculpting' tool when using EIM. http://transputer.org/3dgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=964 If this can make it into MoI it will really set the software head and shoulders above the crowd.

 From: Micha 14 Oct 2009  (9 of 26)
 2991.9 In reply to 2991.8 Anna wrote: "I was watching a tutorial on youtube for Rhino, and the teacher there said something like this when he was making a surface "don't worry about the strange surface, it's Rhino it's always going to be bad". " Or he mean that bad look caused by the antique Rhino mesher. Here I'm sure - the MoI mesher is much more better and faster. :)

 From: Frenchy Pilou (PILOU) 15 Oct 2009  (10 of 26)
 @Bur and other thx for the Manifold precision

 From: neo 15 Oct 2009  (11 of 26)
 2991.11 In reply to 2991.8 Kurt that sounds very promising BUT that tech meant to be released years ago... no wonder why Dassault/Spatial gives them trouble...They want to sell Imagine and Shape after all :) I also like the Autocad 2010 approach, The Maya & Autocad Team have been working together to combine Sub & solid modeling operations... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy9ZIqVE-jQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK58M_y43jY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hlLIkXxIxk EDITED: 22 Oct 2010 by NEO

 From: Anis 15 Oct 2009  (12 of 26)
 2991.12 In reply to 2991.11 Hi Neo... What is the result from the model in Autocad 2010, mesh or nurbs ?

 From: neo 15 Oct 2009  (13 of 26)
 2991.13 In reply to 2991.12 you can save as .sat then import to the app of your choice...autodesk makes a big time move on .sat...it works well with Rhino, spaceclaim... (not always with moi (?) still in search for the magic bullet :) EDITED: 15 Oct 2009 by NEO

 From: Kurt (KURTF) 15 Oct 2009  (14 of 26)
 2991.14 In reply to 2991.11 Nice. Looks like others have moved ahead and the technology is now fairly common. At least in AutoCAD land.

 From: neo 16 Oct 2009  (15 of 26)
 2991.15 In reply to 2991.14 yep Is very promising BUT is nothing new as I said the code comes from Maya and is been there for years. One of the reasons why the T-Splines connection to Maya was not a success IMO. here is an example from maya, modify>convert>subdiv to NURBS. EDITED: 22 Oct 2010 by NEO

 From: BurrMan 16 Oct 2009  (16 of 26)
 2991.16 In reply to 2991.15 >>>here is an example from maya, modify>convert>subdiv to NURBS.>>>> And hows the resulting NURBS model from that conversion??

 From: jbshorty 16 Oct 2009  (17 of 26)
 2991.17 In reply to 2991.16 Burr wrote : "And hows the resulting NURBS model from that conversion??" Now that's the real question, isn't it? Amapi also had a sub-Nurbs converter but the result was not on par with T-Splines...

 From: PaQ 17 Oct 2009  (18 of 26)
 Hi Michael, << One of the difficulties though is that sub-d / box modeling has a fairly different kind of toolset than NURBS modeling, so it would mean introducing quite a number of brand new tools to work on the polygon cage. That means it will take quite a bit of work and that's why I don't know when it will happen.>> Maybe a way to import the sds cage would be a great start :) there are allready so many poly modeler around. Now, if you come with a new poly modeler, with the same 'MoI Touch', it would be amazing !

 From: Anna Pheiffenberger (ANNA) 17 Oct 2009  (19 of 26)
 2991.19 In reply to 2991.18 "Maybe a way to import the sds cage would be a great start" WOW, would that be possible?