Would the current version have a higher success rate at editing Rhino fillets? Perhaps, but the ROI on the annual maintenance for a software that might or might not be helpful was something that I couldn’t justify. I stopped paying maintenance after the 2012+ version as well. I almost always ended up back in Rhino to get the results I needed. Even models that were “healed” and returned to Rhino often came “unglued” after the round trip. I would put the current failure rate probably close to 75% of my attempts. But I also found that if the Rhino model was more “organic” in nature, SpaceClaim would fail to succeed at editing the fillet. I found the only time I used SpaceClaim was to manipulate fillets, and to “heal” naked edges. Almost all of the functionality that I looked to SpaceClaim for were added to Rhino 5. Rhino 5 added so much functionality that I no longer needed to use SpaceClaim on a regular basis. SpaceClaim saved me a lot of time, and when they were asking for an endorsement, that is where that quote came from.
So I was going back and forth between SpaceClaim and Rhino to get the job completed. Rhino (at the time) lacked shelling capabilities, lacked the abilities we now take for granted with sub-object selection, and the Gumball. It involved a carbon fibre exterior with stainless steel interior parts. To make a long story short, it was a tool to simulate a satellite for receiving inspection telemetry. I had a project come across my plate at the time that was truly unique for us. But remember, this was Rhino 4 at that time.
I found the program to have a lot of features that were missing in Rhino. Back then you had a choice between a full feature version or a simplified one. I did that, and in return I was allowed to purchase the more advanced version for the price of the “light” version. I was approached by SpaceClaim back in 2008 to help them beta test the Rhino to SpaceClaim plug-in. I see that SpaceClaim page in the very first link is using a quote of mine from 2008.
0 kommentar(er)
