You were wrongly informed.
If you had ever learned to use Matrix you would agree that the
statement “Rhino will give you more control in the long run” is
absurd. Matrix is maximized for jewelry design, Rhino is not. A good,
well-trained user in Rhino can make a size 9 man’s signet ring,
let’s say six-sided top, stretched along the finger a little and a
domed, tapered shank in 15 -20 minutes… I change to a different
size or shape or taper, or whatever will require that you begin anew
in Rhino, too. In Matrix, a new user can make the same ring in less
than one minute…and modifications in a few seconds. So…in the
time a skilled Rhino user can make one ring, a matrix user can make
a dozen or more…easily.
Many folks have “graduated” from Rhino to matrix. This does not make
Rhino a poor program…it is excellent. But if time is worth money,
Matrix earns its keep quickly.
ArtCam like wise can accomplish things in a very speedy fashion and
is priced similarly to Matrix. It has features that are lacking in
Matrix, and vice versa. Like choosing any tool, a potential user
should get a full demonstration from a knowledgeable person and
choose the tool based on their in-house needs and future plans.
If these programs did not offer financial advantages to their users,
well, they wouldn’t get purchased.
Yes, Matrix is a plug-in for Rhino. So what?
It runs on Rhino code and yet the programmers at Gemvision have
written many, many sub-routines that put some speed in the process,
and many routines that Rhino cannot do and never will be able to do.
I have no financial or other connection to any of the manufacturers
involved here, but as a beta tester for early Rhino, a beta tester
for Matrix, and a 2 year stint as Sales manager for Gemvision (I no
longer have any connection), I know a little bit about how they work
and what they can do. I’m sorry if I bristle a little when someone
with no experience in something voices false It’s not
fair to those who are looking for new tools and not fair to the