Essentially training the same muscle group twice in the same training week, which is a training frequency that you shouldn’t exceed if you are a natural weight lifter like myself. When I was in the depths of preparing for drug-free amateur bodybuilding competitions, I would simply do the Push Pull Legs routine six days per week (I was a bit crazy!) The 6-day program is the same as the 3-day program, except doubled. So this is a perfect example where guys can add an extra Push and Pull session and women can add an extra Legs session, if you choose.Įxample for guys: Push 1, Pull 1, Legs 1, Push 2, Pull 2Įxample for girls: Legs 1, Push 1, Pull 1, Legs 2, Pull 2 6-Day Push Pull Legs Routine Guys typically want to emphasise Upper Body training and women, Lower Body. If it was that big of effort it is definately questionable to think about it but if it was much easier and could be a huge lure for skp users crowd it would be worth it.This routine is one of the most common that people choose as it can be easily programmed across a 5-day work week, allowing the weekend off. Thank you that you took time and wrote your opinion. Besides automatic recognition of closed regions and automatic face splitting when region is “cut” by curves drawn it comes down just to change of gumball extrusions behaviour. It is only combinations of what Rhino already offers but put together well. Perfect sketchup-like workflow would then be: turn on “sketchup mode” with the command which would combine automatic splitfaces when closed region made of curves occurs on a face and closed regions made up from curves would automatically be converted into planar surfaces + push pulls on the geometry would act as extrusions or in case of pushing backwards as boolean subtraction. Robust solution to this problem is that extrusions triggered by gumball should result as boolean subtraction/addition on the solid. Is the market there for a push-pull module? Will it really advance Rhino? I have no idea.īy the way - since we have Rhino.Inside that can run in other programs, what about Sketchup.Inside that can run in Rhino? The main problem is as I stated before, development time/cost. If it stays all planar, maybe even able to do a bidirectional conversion.Īnyway, that’s just my idea (late night to be sure). So you could model away in “push-pull” mode, then when you’re done, convert it into NURBS or normal meshes - if you need to combine it with other NURBS or mesh objects. This object would be separate from NURBS, separate from Mesh, and separate from SubD. What we then need is another new type of object to be developed - mesh based to be sure, but so that it can be manipulated like a Sketchup mesh can. But not necessarily with Rhino’s existing mesh objects/tools, they are not designed that way. There are things you can do with mesh structures that you can’t with NURBS. Remember Sketchup is basically a special kind of mesh modeler. What does this have to do with push-pull ‘Sketchup’ modeling? Everything IMO. ![]() It’s a completely new kind of object, separate from NURBS - and you need to stay within its framework to take advantage of all the tools - then you can convert back into NURBS when you need. Rather than try and adapt something that is not readily adaptable, they invented a completely new type of object with its associated math, workflow and GUI. ![]() People (a certain group anyway) have been clamoring for SubD’s for many years now because Rhino’s NURBS doesn’t address that way of working either. Does that mean it’s impossible? Maybe not, but it will still come back to how much development time and cost needs to be put into it versus the projected market/return. My feeling is that what you want will never be able to be fully addressed by Rhino’s NURBS geometry library, because it’s really not intended for this kind of use. Well, the following may sound like heresy, but here goes anyway…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |