Pain Points in Grasshopper

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Olivier Suire on January 20, 2015 at 2:52pm

Here are my wishes for GH 2 in Rhino V6 :

-Full integration of Kangaroo in GH

-Allow the use of a 3D mouse to pan/zoom in the GH Canvas

-Detailed help for each component with simple examples of how input/output, similar to what is found in the Rhinoscript help.

-Full featured remote so that definitions can be used by non-programmers

-Single type of vector output, but with parametric control over all the characteristics (color, arrow style and shape, line thickness, "solid" option etc...) 

I guess that's it

:)

Permalink Reply by Martin Siegrist on October 8, 2017 at 6:07am

-Allow the use of a 3D mouse to pan/zoom in the GH Canvas

Actually what would be really cool....

Having the possibility to use a separate space navigator just for Grasshopper. That would mean also a separate mouse for Grasshopper 

Permalink Reply by phillip on February 3, 2015 at 3:23am

Another very small request:

Please let [Merge] start with D0 instead of D1 due to continuity. 

Thanks.

Permalink Reply by phillip on February 3, 2015 at 3:27am

Add on: Also it would make sense to have [Entwine] by default in the simplified version to keep paths easy and readable.

Permalink Reply by Kim hauer on February 15, 2015 at 1:36pm

I'm wondering if thought should be given to make GH2 a self contained program.

1. Being able to open multiple windows, of the same project at the same time would provide on the fly component cutting and pasting, with a Freeze wire option, and its own GH2 viewer.
2. Provide Export/Baking to various file formats.
3. Rendering, with GPU support, optional.

My 2 cents :)

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on February 15, 2015 at 2:02pm

Grasshopper relies heavily on the Rhino geometry kernel. Several really smart people have been working on that code for over a decade, so redoing that is not an option.

It's also not entirely clear what McNeel & Associates stands to gain from such an effort. At the moment Grasshopper is free but requires Rhino (which is not free). If Grasshopper is available separately, we'd have to charge for it to make it cost-effective. But is it a viable product? How much would we charge? Would be actually bring in more than the additional Rhino sales we get at the moment? Nobody knows, and it's risky to abandon the current solution, which works fairly well.

Permalink Reply by Kim hauer on February 16, 2015 at 4:37pm

I understand the dilemma totally. Its not easy to abandon something in which one has invested so much time. 10 years ago I finally decided to cut my 20 year AutoCad Umbilical Cord. This was not an easy decision. It took me a long long time, I finally came to the conclusion that AutoCad users, thru AutoCad User Groups had become nothing more then Beta Testers while paying full software price. Then one day you discover Sketchup, and you are able to bang out quick 3d proposal, and now even working drawings, with blinding speed. Rhino is in serious need to simplify, look at capability of the Moi interface.

Permalink Reply by Kim hauer on February 26, 2015 at 4:48pm

I'm sorry David, I'm not trying to disrespectful, with my comments. I think its time for these smart people to rediscover their objectives. Do a search for a recent TED talk "How to make Toast" Its my feeling the people behind Rhino need to reinvent their passion, otherwise they will be left behind.

Look at the progress Blender has made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPu9_OGFgc

Permalink Reply by Aristo Compasso on March 6, 2015 at 2:19pm

My suggestions! Thanks.

What is missing from grasshopper?  

A Grasshopper viewer, that you can basically send over to someone else with a given definition, they edit the parameters  to their liking, as in the remote control and without access to the definition itself, and return it so that we can then bake and continue the remaining design process in Rhino/GH.

An option for selecting the direction of projection (positive or negative) to avoid double projections when you are projecting from the inside of any given geometry. This is very cumbersome to get around, requires a completely different approach and a lot more components for something that projection would solve elegantly in a few steps.

What kind of bottlenecks do you run into?

On a large definition, with geometry on top of each other it's hard to see where you are because you don't see the selection turning to green beneath the geometry that you built afterwards. Sometimes I have to keep hiding and revealing lots of components.

What secret wish do you have for Grasshopper that doesn't even seem possible?

Using a video/music file as the input/driver of a definition.

What project have you been meaning to undertake but haven't had/won't have the time?

Using GH for lighting design.

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on March 6, 2015 at 3:00pm

Thanks Aristo,

good points all. Incidentally I'm pretty sure there are plugins that allow you to import images, sound (maybe even video?) and use it as driving data. The plan is to have images be a native data type in GH2, but video and audio probably not.

Permalink Reply by Aristo Compasso on March 11, 2015 at 9:59am

Hey guys,

Just occurred to me that selecting the geometry in the viewport and highlighting the component responsible for drawing it in GH would be fantastic!

All the best.

Permalink Reply by Claudio on March 20, 2015 at 2:08pm

My only suggestion

What about a good help system. With graphical explanations and some link to tutorials.

cheers

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• …
• 22
• Next ›
• Page