Mstn for Rhino Users

Hello Bentley crew,

We have a weird situation where a lot of projects are undertaken using Rhino in the early stages; which then have to be converted to Revit or Aecosim (depending on the client's requirements). NetworkRail and London Underground here in the UK and I believe the MTA (NY, USA) require Bentley deliverables.

There is already a Mstn for ACAD users series on Bentley Learn. It would be good to add a similar series for Rhino users.

This should highlight the benefits of Mstn as a platform for large projects:-

  • Reference files. The nearest equivalent in Rhino would be Reference Blocks. I am seeing ridiculously large and unweildy Rhino files (200-600MB). 
  • Much faster display system.
  • Section cuts that work better.
  • Native DWG and IFC referencing.
  • Solids + Constraints modeling.
  • GC built in. No more baking.
  • ContextCapture
  • Larger files Mstn CE is now native 64bit. I think Rhino V5 is still 32bit like V8i?
  • Mature detailing and documentation tools
  • ..?
  • Attached is a quick table comparing Rhino and Mstn tools. The yellow cells are where Mstn is missing an equivalent tool. The table is based on Rhino's available tools. There are of course a lot of tools that Mstn has that Rhino doesn't.

    When you are exploring/roughing out a design, it pays to have the freedom that comes with something non-parametric and less BIM/plan-based.. ie more CAD-like. Rhino has a reputation as being a robust 'swiss army' knife modeling tool that is well suited to 'sketching' concepts... that can be reinforced by Grasshopper and a large ecosystem of addons, if desired. Nevertheless, Its main strength is its NURBS-based modeling tools and handling. 

    OTOH, Mstn is also a long standing NURBS modeler that has much better solids and mesh modeling tools, due to all those civils roadway splines and terrain modeling verticals.

    I started the table above as means to spare Rhino users getting frustrated when using Mstn/Aecosim. These users will spend a lot of time looking for tools they are accustomed to.... and occasionally disappointed in not finding any equivalent.

    I found that there are:

    1. Very few Rhino tools that do not have workable Mstn equivalents. Some of this I suspect is down to Mstn's long standing support of roadway design workflows, and not ship/product design like Rhino. Rhino's curve/surface generation tools tend to recognise that they have to sit on surfaces, or recognise adjacent surfaces' continuity/orientation. For example, Mstn has no equivalent of OffsetCrvOnSrf which is a Copy Parallel that generates an offset curve that lies on the surface supporting/hosting the curve (think openings in a ship's hull, for example). ArcBlend also reminds me of all that time you spend closing curves when modeling in 3d. Tween curves / surfaces are tools that I wished I had on many occasions when 3d modeling in Mstn. Rhino's Connect is a lot more useful than Mstn Extend Surface because to recognises that the user would very likely need to extend to another surface when modeling in 3d... etc etc etc. I wonder if Bentley's Maxsurf team could help platform out, here?
    2. Some Mstn tools are very close but are not quite as intuitive or aimed at architectural 3d modeling. For example, Rhino's ExtrudeSrfTapered is very close to Mstn's Solid by Extrusion Along Path. The difference is that the taper in Rhino is defined by an angle (and not a scale factor) which makes it much more meaningful/usable for architectural design.
    3. Some key Rhino tools like Symmetry are simply without equivalent in Mstn. Again, I suspect this is something a shipbuilding app like Maxsurf would have.
    4. A small number of tools have equivalents that have been 'deprecated' (Boss) or in a vertical (Slab). Easy fix?
    5. A number of Rhino tools like Mesh Cones/Cylinder/Ellipsoid etc, Contour, CSec, MeshOutline, PointCloudSection, Silhouette require a two or multi-step process in Mstn. It would be good to provide equivalent Mstn tools that are more 'quick on the draw', if it is to appeal as a schematic design tool.

    As mentioned above, there seems to be a trend of using a separate tool for scheme design with either Rev*t or Aecosim for the later stages... for various reasons. It would be helpful to be able to transition Rhino users onto Aecosim as early and easily as possible to avoid the costs of paying for two licenses and the translation overheads.

  • Dominic. Good discussion topic and thanks for posting the table. Very interesting. I certainly do get your point and the below has certainly has not gone unnoticed.

    "there seems to be a trend of using a separate tool for scheme design"


    This is a test

  • Hi Dominic,

    Thank you, that is a useful list, we'll circulate it to our colleagues.

    Marc

  • Thanks Dominic a really interesting read.

    Brenden Roche

    Applications Engineer

    Bentley Systems, Manchester UK


    This is a test