I am user of Softimage XSI mainly a Subdivision application(talking only about modelling) but i also used NURBS in testing Alias Studio, i also modeled in Rhino 1.0 and 2.0 and SOLID modeling in Solidworks besides Polygon arch work in 3dsMax.
I am user that usually finds software not very friendly- except Sketchup but it is very limited for Design work . In my case i hate that XSI and all other Subdivision modellers are so dependent on topology and that there is no way to "fix" some control points/edges despite SubD degree. In Nurbs i hate that they cant be flexible enough and that i just cant move things around and that is too much work compared with SubD to get a General form.
My opinion is that the Nurbs only for conceptual work is not the way to go. Catia for example has http://www.3ds.com/flashgallery/imagine-and-shape-v5r17/ that shows some promise, of course they are in a 20000$ app but it shows a way. This also reminds of an app like PTC Pro Concept that was buggy but it was more flexible.



Neverthless this is what i like and dislike about MOI- i didnt spent more than 30 min with it.

+ Interface is aestetical pleasing
+ all commands are at hand
+screen size isnt wasted in toolbars or in useless bars that has only the application name.

- Screen rotation/dolly is slower than in XSI ( i am in a Mobility Radeon 9700)- seems improved over August release.
- Screen commands dont are productivity friendly.
- Filleting not always works with me. I found that latter that one of the problems was that i was mistaken and was also selecting the lines i designed to extrude. But the problem still persists when i change some measure.

Hi Pinin, thanks for your feedback.

I agree, it would be cool if MoI had the same capabilities as a $20,000 app. I hope you realize that this is an amazingly high expectation.

I'm not surprised that there are a lot of things about MoI that you don't like, from your comments it sounds like you are involved with demanding surfacing work, tweaking and manipulating surfaces to fine detail. This is not the purpose of MoI, it is just not what it is targeted at, particularly for the first release. MoI is much more about doing simple things quickly and easily.

I think that your definition of "conceptual capabilities" may be along this fine-tuned surfacing vein... Let me propose that there can be other definitions of "conceptual modeling" that involve doing quick rough sketches of a model, not focusing on reflection lines or detailed surface styling. I believe that this type of more rough conceptual modeling is indeed very well suited to NURBS technology, especially by having boolean and trimming operations available which seem to be very problematic in traditional SubD modeling.

There are different styles of models that lend themselves more to SubD and others that work great in NURBS. But I don't agree that one style is necessarily more "conceptual" than the other.

The Catia software is extremely interesting. Of course, the #1 reason why it is so interesting is not only that it uses SubD surfaces, but that it can take those SubD surfaces and export them as NURBS to be used for further work with more traditional NURBS tools such as trimming, CAM, analysis, etc.. I believe that in the future this combination technology of having a SubD mesh controlling NURBS patches will become more pronounced and allow for more "mix-and-match" between the two techniques. But it will take a while before the technology is more widely available.


> - Screen rotation/dolly is slower than in XSI ( i am in a Mobility Radeon 9700)-
> seems improved over August release.

This is strange, the first time I have heard about this. There were no changes in this area from the August release. Are you using the buttons at the bottom of the viewport, or are you using the right-click and scroll wheel inside of a viewport? The bottom viewport buttons are set to do a rather smoother motion which may not be to your liking, the right-click-inside-a-viewport method is probably closer to what you are used to.


> - Screen commands dont are productivity friendly.

I'm not sure if I understand this one - you mean as compared to using the keyboard? There is a capability to define keyboard shortcuts, you can see one of the other threads about that. In general relying exclusively on the keyboard has very bad productivity for tablet usage, one big area of focus in MoI was to make it more friendly for tablet usage.


> - Filleting not always works with me.

This is going to be an ongoing problem. It is a difficult area and will improve over time.

Thank you for your comments,

- Michael

"I agree, it would be cool if MoI had the same capabilities as a $20,000 app. I hope you realize that this is an amazingly high expectation."

I was lamenting that the module was only inside a $20000 application. The whole application have many more modules capabilities to probably justify the price tag.

"Let me propose that there can be other definitions of "conceptual modeling" that involve doing quick rough sketches of a model, not focusing on reflection lines or detailed surface styling."

Yes of course, but i disagree that is a desirable path if one wants to appeal for conceptual work from Mechanical Design to Product Design.
One of the most important issues of the Conceptual work is the time spent. If i can cut that time i can make many more iterations. Nurbs is generaly more complex to start modeling except if i have to model just a couple of big surfaces, and it is also it is more dificulty to change afterwards . I am far from happy with Subdivisions by the motives i stated in first post and i agree that a mix Subdivision+Nurbs approach is desirable, that was the reason i posted that link.

"The bottom viewport buttons are set to do a rather smoother motion which may not be to your liking, the right-click-inside-a-viewport method is probably closer to what you are used to."

You're right, i started to use RMB in last test. It's a little slower than XSI but the diference isnt such that i would call it a limitation anymore.

Regards

> Yes of course, but i disagree that is a desirable path if one wants
> to appeal for conceptual work from Mechanical Design to Product Design.

I can totally understand that it's not a desirable path for your design needs.

There are however other people who can benefit from this type of rough model sketching, who do not need to iterate on fine surface details so much, especially early on for some just general massing type visualization.

Does this mean that these people are not doing "Conceptual work", or that they are not legitimately inside the field of "Mechanical Design", or "Product Design" ? I think that would be a rather narrow and restrictive view.

There is a legitimate place for MoI's approach to modeling within these fields. But at the same time I completely agree that it is not a universal solution to every type of design workflow.

There will certainly be many places where it will not be the right fit. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job at hand.

One of the big advantages to NURBS is that some of the techniques such as sweeping, booleans and trimming are quite easy to understand and use. There is more overlap with 2D illustration through curve drawing. This lowers the bar to entry for people who want to build some models (which could be called "concept models") but don't want to invest a huge amount of time to learn how the modeling tool works.

Imagine trying to teach a casual user how to build a model resembling their idea using XSI...

- Michael

Not trying to sound like an ass (okay, maybe a LITTLE) but if you're comparing an unfinished single-purpose app to something like XSI... you need to see your doctor about have a cranial-rectal extraction done.

Think of MoI as being the NURBS equivalent of Silo.