algorithmic modeling for Rhino

I know this was asked long time ago. (by me too) but I haven't found any elegant solution to achieve this.

basically what I need is the core functionality in GH to process data and use it to drive Maya's Poly Object. I was wondering if there is a bridge that can do this or perhaps someone working on it?

Maya Node Editor (which is similar to GH) is very destructive and most of my lovely nodes (or components) only exist in GH. 

if you must ask why, it is because it is often for architect to start from poly(or mesh)-based subdivision for organic + hardsurface modelling. and Rhino SubD is still in its infant state. (the WIP) .so modelling SUbD in other software is still common and I believe will still continue even after RHino 6 is out. 

so a Bridge to Maya Core would be a good idea I think? or maybe Im the only who ever asked this?

sorry for being too blunt. 


Views: 2796

Replies to This Discussion

Is T-Splines not an adequate sub-d modeler in Rhino? There's also Clayoo, which is adding a brush tool, but T-Splines has those special T-joints that are supposed to be superior.

Hi Nik, Thanks for your quick reply.

There are still so many tools lacking in T-splines compared to other matured Sub-D Software that I have discussed before on Rhino Discoursed under Serengeti. the T-joints sure is lovely. but it is not actually the problem in SubD even if we dont have T-joints.

we can use Arrow or Y-shape joints to mimic the T and we are free to have star points anywere we like. despite that I like how T-spline going. Rhino will be having SubD in the next release but still it would take time for it to catch up with other already-matured SubD native software.

I have tried Clayoo as well. I have sent a suggestion to Clayoo team long time ago and they have been very very responsive but still, for major studio. we tend to go for a well-matured software rather than a plug in. 

Hadid use Maya too. and it is easier to receive both files from Rhino NURBS and Max's poly. so that is the reason we adopted it long time ago.

Thanks for your answer buddy

I don't know if you are the only one who has ever asked, but it's certainly a very rare request. Lots of people are and have been building bridges to many different target applications so the fact that Maya is still missing might indicate there's no great demand for it.

Doesn't Blender have both subd and a node editor build in?

yes, David. strange thing, in the forum, Architect who uses Maya never shows up, but in real life, they do use that especially during the conceptual-design phase. (some studio in Australia, London and Singapore). 

Hadid (RIP) is one of the studio who uses that. 

we have never used Blender. but certainly would love to try it. but I think others Node Editor doesn't give as much control and flexibility as Grasshopper which is why for most parametric modelling . we relies on GH. Maya node editor is more like a "connection editor" and geared more for animation.

it is so sad that Grasshopper can only be used inside Rhino T^T. 

in Maya forum there are some guys (including me) who wants to have GH plug in for Maya :P

maybe if the demand is huge, even you yourself can consider.... to... make it happen :P 

as for now Ill just wait for someone to bridge it to Maya.

Thanks, David. 

For native SubD modelling in Grasshopper (i.e. not meaning all the neat direct polygon modelling methods found in the mentioned packages) it is worth mentioning Weaverbird and the work of Dave Stasiuk (which support creases). The SubD geometry type in the Rhino6 WIP is also looking quite promising, but is obviously not going to be as feature rich and refined in terms of direct modelling as Maya, Modo etc. But hey, it's all progress right :) 

yes, I have used both. weaverbird is always my must-to-use component in GH. it is certainly promising for future rhino. and hopefully they will grow faster and catch up with the other package too. 

I think the strong point in Rhino is Grasshopper. we can see other package with awesome NURBS or surfacing tool. but nothing literally can beat the present Grasshopper. that is why. I somehow wish that Grasshopper can have its own stand alone software that can be plugged to multiple 3D package. or at least a dedicated bridge to make it happen.

currently Maya user use Node Editor and bunch of other plug in (soup, Mash, etc) to do procedural stuff but they are all extremely hard to use and requires fairly decent scripting knowledge. this is the downside of Maya that we simply cannot afford team of coders in our studio. 

with GH you can do it yourself basically. even artist or designer can jump right in and feel comfortable. 

anyway. long life GH. and let see what David will bring us in the next release :P

For the record, Maya has a visual node editing mode.


Taz, yes we use Maya node editor. but it is so destructive. if you have ever used it you'd know how destructive Maya node editor is.

we are now waiting for Mash to be implemented in MAya a Mo-graph nodes which is good for scattering and do some cool motion graphics. but the key in Maya node editor that is still missing is called "SOUP" plug in. and it is so overlooked and very little documentation. 

on your screenshot the set up is more about relationship in rigging. try to do a Hexagonal panelling with altered mesh topology driven by curve transform value and then you'd know how cumbersome it is to set that up in maya. as opposed to Grasshopper which is really made to do these kind of things.

I remember (a long time ago) it wasn't much fun and kind of existed as an afterthought. Only power users knew how to do anything useful with it.  Sounds like much hasn't changed until recently.

Thanks for the update!

Does MEL still exist?

MEL is still there. and it has python too. basically the "power user" is actually a huge studio that can hire scripting team to do just scripting. even that they have to develop their own inhouse plug in to make that useful in the production workflow. and no way a small studio can afford it.

there are huge changes in Maya recently. but because the things to cover is huge (including animation,simulation etc) you need to wait in turns to get what you need in modelling. the last 2 releases hav been a good update in Modelling though.

modelling in Maya is by far the reason why I use it

and the thing that never changes in Maya. bugs. so many bugs. 

I totally agree that it is much better to actually learn python in its native program.

its not about we dont want to learn python in our studio workflow, the thing is my office is still too small and we can not afford a team of python-skilled individuals. finding a well skilled grasshopper guy is much easier rather than Phyton skilled guy in Maya.(At least for architectural field. most of them are in Film or Game industry)

I think the main reason grasshopper exist is to give a person who has no scripting background like me, a chance to use a procedural node based modelling, and so far. we like what david has brought to us. 

for that reason we can only go with what we can afford / get.

actually Maya folks wants the same too. they want Houdini in Maya. because as I have said, not all studio can afford in both financial and time to really invest in scripting.

I do realize GH is attached to rhino. so far we can only rely on export / import but who knows in the future things might change :P

rhino used to be called "NURBS modelling for Windows" right. but hey, it runs on Mac now :PPP

 What about quick workflow kludges instead, that you maybe haven't allowed yourself to accept as good?  You seem to be overcompensating for one man's quirks, your own.






  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2022   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service