- #FORMZ ZAHA HADID PRO#
- #FORMZ ZAHA HADID SOFTWARE#
- #FORMZ ZAHA HADID LICENSE#
- #FORMZ ZAHA HADID PLUS#
- #FORMZ ZAHA HADID FREE#
#FORMZ ZAHA HADID PRO#
For example, but not as a limitation, if you are employed as a member of the professional staff of an educational institution such as the facilities management team, you are considered to be engaged in for-profit activity and you must purchase a SketchUp Pro license. However, if you are an employee of an educational institution and your job responsibilities are not those of a qualified instructor, you must purchase a SketchUp Pro license.
#FORMZ ZAHA HADID SOFTWARE#
This includes installation and use of the Software in teaching labs at an educational institution, provided that use of the Software is by enrolled students who are engaged in classroom learning activities at the educational institution. If you are a qualified instructor at an educational institution, or you are an enrolled student at an educational institution and use the Software in your classwork, you may use the Software for classroom teaching purposes, and classwork purposes. If you are a for-profit organization of any kind, or an employee of a for-profit organization using the Software or Services in that capacity, you are engaged in commercial activity therefore, in order to use the Software and Services, you must purchase a SketchUp Pro license. Non-commercial use means: you may not sell, rent, lease or lend the output of the Software or the Services.
#FORMZ ZAHA HADID LICENSE#
Trimble Navigation Limited and/or its affiliates (“Trimble”) gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the executable version of the Software for non-commercial use only. USE OF THE PRODUCTS CONTENT IN THE PRODUCTS
#FORMZ ZAHA HADID FREE#
That’s not true… sketchup is free software for non-commercial use.ġ. I was recently making a case why Mesh tools should get some more attention in planning Rhino development ( More Mesh friendly Rhino ), not to suggest switching your development focus but rather recognize the common workflows and trends, at least in architectural user base and keep up with that while expanding Rhino in future. The advanced surfacing would maybe come second… Obviously as world and workflows keep changing, Rhino is evolving along. If I was to distill ‘why’ for architectural use, I would just say ‘non-limiting and very reliable modeler’ to make the case.
#FORMZ ZAHA HADID PLUS#
But for many, the strength of Rhino is the non-limiting approach in modeling, stability and reliability of the product, plus of course easiness to organize your files and working with large files, many file formats, excellent tools to work with 2D and 3D curves, scripting, parametrics with Grasshopper, great community and tech support, and I could go on and on. It’s fantastic to have these tools, when needed, no question about that.
By no means I suggest changing the focus, rather cheering for ‘widening your field of view’ Many architectural projects are not so complex geometrically and don’t necessary require the whole array of advanced surfacing tools but Rhino is still great when working on them. Zaha Hadid’s and Frank Gehry’s projects are good, ‘extreme’ examples of using Rhino in architecture for complex shaped projects and definitely Rhino’s ability to produce these is an important component of it. I would still say Rhino beats SketchUp in that aspect if used properly, both when it comes to conceptual design and visual presentations. SketchUp is easy to learn but working on serious and more complex stuff you will hit the wall quite fast with this seems to come up quite often (“Rhino is intended for industrial design”) but I am sure you do realize, like it or not, that it is vastly used in other industries, architecture being probably as popular as the product design. But this is mostly a feedback on scene complexity, not product comparison. Not to mention the obvious difference of ability to model any shape you want, relatively easily. Rhino files, if handled well, can have enormous amount of geometry and complexity and still perform well. There is a lot of basic functionality of scene organization missing in SKP that I can only imagine make working with large scenes much harder (lack of Layer folders being one of the main ones). Having said that, Rhino in right hands beats SKP in most aspects, I would even say producing images as well. It’s just a matter of how organized your file is and how experienced user is. So - I would not say SketchUp is so limiting in scene size and complexity. The “bilboarding” entourage elements in SketchUp (mapped 2D planes always facing the camera) are nice addition too to populate the scenes easily with light-weight components. It is definitely by the extensive use of components and groups (equivalent of Rhino blocks). taken very far and seemingly working OK for the designers creating them. I have been seeing (unfortunately!) quite complex SketchUp models of stadiums, airports etc. Back to the original question about handling the file/scene sizes by Rhino vs SketchUp - I would not say SketchUp is so limited in that aspect.
0 kommentar(er)
