Onshape vs Rhino

matthew_chapman752

 I taught myself onshape because making parts is a hobby of mine (still quite the novice). My wife just recently started a masters program in architecture and they are having the students use Rhino which she nor I have ever used.  So I thought I'd try to learn it with her because learning is more fun and easier when you can do it with someone.  After a couple mind numbing Rhino tutorials I've developed a profound appreciation for Onshape.  I was sold on it before, but after dabbling in Rhino I'm convinced the people who made Onshape are pure genius.  I had assumed the level of intuitive controls, commands and part manipulation that was built into Onshape was just something standard in the industry and was I ever wrong about that.  After I discovered you could export into a Rhino format I convinced my wife to let me show her Onshape so she could quickly develop what she needed to in Onshape and port it over to Rhino for class.  I was able teach her enough in an hour to enable her to build a simple house that would have taken a good month of frustratingly painful tutorials and trial and error in Rhino.    Then there's the whole "cloud" thing where all you need is a web browser so you're no longer dependent on overpriced hardware and the need to install software.  All you're models wherever you are. And my absolute favorite functionality: you can lay in bed and model on your Ipad while you watch tv!  I can't say enough how forward thinking the people at Onshape are.  So keep the awesome ideas coming gals and guys at onshape! 

So enough about how great I think Onshape is.  I have a couple of questions for the more experienced users and possibly if there are any architects who can answer this:  In my wife's class they usually have to port their models over to Adobe Illustrator to put the finishing touches for presentations such as drawings and cross hatching.  1) Is this even necessary? Does Onshape have enough functionality from an architect student's perspective to avoid having to use illustrator? 2) What export file format would we want to use to port over to adobe illustrator? 3) What functionality is available in Rhino that's a must have for an architect student that you can't get with Onshape?

philip_thomas

@matthew_chapman752 - Wow! There is a lot going on in that post - I suppose 'Thank you' is the first order of business

Regarding the product itself - it's not our first rodeo! We are the original team that wrote SolidWorks and it is a fine product! That said, it (and every other pro grade product in the marketplace) is built on the same 20 year old platform (windows and workstations) and completely misses the new platforms of choice (cloud, web and mobile). Moreover, our business model is different - free for public data and a flat fee for private data (same functionality). Makes much more sense than $xxxx upfront and nothing for free.

Regarding your questions regarding Onshape use for architecture - you bring up some good points.
While Onshape was not written specifically for architects, much of the mechanical functionality would carry over.
To export to Adobe Illustrator, i would try DXF/DWG from an Onshape drawing (or do the whole drawing in Onshape?).
If that doesn't give you what you want, you can export drawings from Onshape as PDFs to read into Illustrator. 
Bottom line, i am not sure what benefit you would be getting from AI?

As for Rhino - it is also a fine product - known primarily for the ability to create very freeform organic shapes.
That said, as an Engineer, i am very happy with the slew of new advanced geometry creation capabilities within Onshape.
We would be very interested in following your progress - please post updates here in this thread and please, feel free to ask any questions.

Many thanks - Onshape.

matthew_chapman752

Thanks for the reply Phillip.  I'll watch how the wife uses illustrator as she completes her project and let you know.  I have a feeling it's just being used to create technical drawings and in that case I would say only use Onshape.  My perspective on Rhino is this: the typical architect student uses less than 25% of the total functionality available in Rhino.  This is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant.  I haven't used all of the functionality in Onshape yet probably not by a long shot, but it sure feels organic to me when I design parts.  I have yet to be able to design anything in one shot so the ability to go back all the way to beginning and make tweaks is worth a lot more than extra free-form functionality.  And, as I've discovered playing with Rhino, the free-form business can get sloppy quick, which lends itself to re-work.  I'm a huge fan of build once and iterate until you have what you want without each iteration being a complete rebuild.  To me that's the definition of organic development. 

I spoke with one of her classmates last weekend at a school function and he had said he was up all night changing and re-changing his model and he found out that he had to save many different point in time files to avoid having to start from scratch if he happened to make a mistake.  Something Onshape handles seamlessly between parametric design and version control.  I've already given him my Onshape pitch and and he's going to check it out.

I used to scribble my ideas on paper then start over in Onshape but have since realized that starting directly in OnShape helped me better articulate my ideas into a real 3d prototype.  From there it's much easier to visualize the steps needed to get to a final part design.

My wife told me just an hour ago she talked to her professor about Onshape, and not knowing anything about Onshape her professor said she was hurting herself by not learning Rhino.  Her intention is to still learn Rhino but now she can take her time and meet her project deadlines thanks to you guys.  I told her I expected that exact feedback from her professor and rightly so as from the professors perspective, maybe this is just another student trying to take a shortcut right?  

I build information systems for a living and I know first hand how hard change is and doubly so when you try to introduce new tools sets.  So I'm taking this as a personal challenge.  I'll keep you posted.  

Thanks again Phillip.

philip_thomas

Matthew - what a great perspective - thank you.
Let us know how we can help!

michał_1

Hi Matthew, few tips:
First, your wife should export DXF files directly from sketches that are created where section need to be. She will have to use Intersection and Use tool. I'm guessing that she is filling closed shapes with pattern (hatching). Then she might need to do some boolean operation in Illustrator before filling. Quality of drawings in Onshape is not enough for any Illustrator jobs.
Second, to some extent, she might use existing drawings and try to match hatching to architecture standards.
Another thing is a question, why she might be forced to learn Rhino? First to know is that idea of 3D model is specific to MCAD world, architects are using sophisticated drawing boards (Revit, Archicad), they work in 2D (modern software uses 3D but it just adds a depth to a flat drawing. For example you don't model doors, you just add a proper icon to a flat plan). Because of that architecture programs didn't develop too many modeling tools (most of them are borrowed from MCAD), to express very sophisticated shapes architects use other tools, for example, Rhino. Currently, a very popular trend is parametric design (do not confuse with parametric modeling). Rhino has very powerfull plugin Grasshopper for such designs. Just look at these:

 
While this is theoretically possible in Onshape it would be extremely redundant. To be able to write a custom feature for that, you need to know programming and math (quite well), and even then feature based CAD is not the most efficient environment for such tasks.
Below you have other examples, this time something to read:
http://designplaygrounds.com/blog/learn-how-to-design-an-organic-facade-using-t-splines/
https://hugoloureiro.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/parametric-canopy/
There is another reason for learning Rhino. For most CAD on a market, shapes beyond simple prismatic solids are defined with NURBS surfaces. While you can create complex shapes in Onshape you won't learn what NURBS are (in practice). If she will know just Onshape she will limit her ability to express her ideas to current possibilities of Onshape toolbox.
I would advise you to encourage her to use Rhino as told and fulfill her assignments with Rhino, even if deadline looks scary. She will benefit from that, she will be better even in Onshape, eventually.

matthew_chapman752

Thanks @michal_1 this is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for.  My wife is in the process of learning Rhino, and I'm planning to learn it myself.  Also, her university is having them use autocad as well.  But, like you mentioned in your comment they are using Rhino for the sophisticated shapes.  The issue here is that my wife is doing an architecture master with no undergrad experience in architecture.  So she is way behind the learning curve in these software options and the learning curve in Onshape is REALLY short.  Onshape has said that they didn't design their program with architecture specifically in mind.  So I get that it can't be a replacement for Rhino, autocad or illustrator.  With all the options being thrown at these students I'm trying to think of a strategy that can give some relief to the students (specifically my lovely wife)  at the disadvantage of having no prior experience with architecture programs.  The professors were upfront out of the gate that they were on their own for learning these programs.  Thanks again for your feedback it was most helpful

matthew_chapman752

Thanks @michal_1 this is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for.  My wife is in the process of learning Rhino, and I'm planning to learn it myself.  Also, her university is having them use autocad as well.  But, like you mentioned in your comment they are using Rhino for the sophisticated shapes.  The issue here is that my wife is doing an architecture master with no undergrad experience in architecture.  So she is way behind the learning curve in these software options and the learning curve in Onshape is REALLY short.  Onshape has said that they didn't design their program with architecture specifically in mind.  So I get that it can't be a replacement for Rhino, autocad or illustrator.  With all the options being thrown at these students I'm trying to think of a strategy that can give some relief to the students (specifically my lovely wife)  at the disadvantage of having no prior experience with architecture programs.  The professors were upfront out of the gate that they were on their own for learning these programs.  Thanks again for your feedback it was most helpful

matthew_chapman752

Good morning @philip_thomas, I spent about 6 hours last night going through rhino tutorials and then sketching out just the floor plan for a basic house, no extruding.  Then I did the same thing in onshape and here is my feedback: With Rhino you could create all the same shapes but if you put a line in the wrong spot it was easier to just recreate it then try to move it.  There were no options I know of yet to say "Make this line this far away from this one," using dimensionality.  There were no options to easily and quickly add constraints such as "Make this line parallel to this one."  you basically had to eyeball the parallel.  Aside from intuitive command options to achieve what I had previously mentioning you could of course create extra geometry to get everything to line up the way you wanted.  There were no options for construction geometry which to me is a must, but you could use the layers function in Rhino to the same effect.

I found myself asking, what if I want to change this down the road?  It would be quite time consuming.  So I guess this is where grasshopper comes in.  I really liked grasshopper, the guy that created that program would fit right in with you guys.  The biggest benefit of grasshopper, that I liked beside the whole idea of parametric design itself, was the intuitive gui interface allowing you to build and incorporate easily changeable inputs.  

So what did I like about Rhino that Onshape doesn't have (or I don't know how to do yet).  I liked being able to move by 3 dimensions and not just 2 dimensions.  I'll give you an example of how I saw the loft command used in a tutorial.  So on the top view you could draw a square and a circle within the square.  Then switch to the side view and you could lift the circle vertically from the square and then connect the two using a surface via the "Loft" command without having to define a plane.  Although, I ask myself again does the free form nature of an option like this lend itself to more development overhead when you have to go back and make changes?

So it took me a good half hour to just create a basic floor plan with some structures and some angling of corners.  I then went to onshape and re-did the same thing in ten minutes.  I made a change to a cut away in rhino to a spot where I put a cutaway in a wall, it took ten minutes of re-work.  in onshape, I double clicked a button and changed a number.  Less that 5 seconds and the rest of the drawing was updated accordingly.  I'm still hoping I just don't know enough about Rhino yet and the development time will decrease a lot more.  

The next thing and this is an important plus in Rhino's favor is ability to extract floor plan drawings, which is an add-on and you did say already that onshape wasn't designed with architecture needs in mind.  

I'll keep you posted.

matthew_chapman752

Another thing I've noticed in my onshape vs rhino exploration is that making objects a true solid in Onshape is effortless. So much so that I was a little frustrated with how much effort went into doing the same in rhino. But I'm still learning and hoping it will get easier as I learn.

michał_1

Then you doing something wrong. Do you use solid extrude?

matthew_chapman752

Hi @michał_1  thanks for the quick demo.  Could you take it a bit further and show how you change the shape of the extruded object to be say a square without completely redoing the object?

michał_1

@matthew_chapman752 I've sent you a message with short video. I don't want to spam this forum with Rhino tutorial.

philip_thomas

michał_1 - feel free to 'spam' away (showing us other CAD systems is not spam ) - Maybe we can learn from what other people like

michał_1

@philip_thomas nice to hear it. Next time I will, this time it's really trivial, you need to know how to use Gumball (triad manipulator) and snapping options, that's it.

owen_sparks

philip_thomas said:

michał_1 - feel free to 'spam' away (showing us other CAD systems is not spam ) - Maybe we can learn from what other people like

Awesome attitude. :thumbsupsmiley:

Owen S

matthew_chapman752

Ok here's my verdict and this is all my humble opinion and not intended to detract from the great things you can do with Rhino.  If you're all freeform and don't need to 3d print what you're making and aren't prone to re-work, Rhino works pretty good.  Since most everything I do I print, I like onshape.  I like onshape in that it's quick, intuitive, parametric, collaborative and has excellent version control.  If you've ever worked on something for hours in Rhino and had to start from scratch then you know how important versioning is.  If you're an architect.  I recommend using onshape as a replacement for grasshopper and/or sketchup.  You can port over to rhino at any step of the process and leverage Rhino for it's value add when needed.  If you work on projects in teams, then I can't begin to tell you how powerful a collaborative tool like onshape can be.  Onshape is state of the art and should be the new gold standard for the 3D design industry.  Is it missing things?  Yes; it's a relatively new tool but from what I've seen the team is serious about meeting your needs and are working hard to build in more and more functionality.  And one of my favorite things about onshape... I can lay in bed watch tv and model on my ipad... 

michał_1

I know that this comment is completely off the track, but for those interested in architecture (maybe curious what I meant by saying "First to know is that idea of 3D model is specific to MCAD world, architects are using sophisticated drawing boards (Revit, Archicad), they work in 2D"). Today I found great youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoc2ZM2cYas4DijNdaEJXUA. Just watch this two to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2W5Wmp15YA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly8orBNiNQM