Hi as much as I want to agree with you, logic dictates if you want to solve as many cases as possible then you’ll have to implement the most complex case, then the simple cases will adjust.īut anyways, as usual Naval Architecture will be ignored, to be honest I’m trying to get used to that fact.īe it as it may. Note that in Rhino both Make2d and technical display operate within this context, with no application specific information. It is my hope that even with this restricted approach we could still solve important problems for a significant set of users. On the output side we produce curves, and probably hatches (filled planar regions) with attributes e.g, color, transparency, line type, hatch patterns, etc. The input information we have is: object geometry view specification and object properties like layer and color. So any special drawing consideration that depends on application specific information is too complicated for me. A general Rhino model has no information about architectural or engineering features like door, walls, ship hulls, conduit etc. My guess is this would be shop drawings and technical illustration.įrom a developers point of view I want to be able to make the 2-d drawing from the 3d Rhino model. I think the focus, at least initially, would be on the lowest common denominator and trying to provide a complete solution for the simplest applications. Examples are shop drawings, technical illustration, various engineering and construction drawings, etc. And You raise a great points that different disciplines have different needs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |