Hi everyone,
I’ve been exploring how 3D models created in Rhino can be connected with GIS and brought into a broader geospatial context through Cesium.
In this workflow, I use Heron, a Grasshopper plugin for working with GIS data in Rhino, to establish the geographic reference in WGS84 (EPSG:4326). The georeferenced Rhino model is then exported as a KMZ file and uploaded to Cesium ion, where it can be visualised and shared within its real-world geographic context.
What interests me is not simply transferring a model from one platform to another, but what changes when the model becomes part of a larger geographic environment.
Rhino provides the geometric form.
GIS provides the geographic position.
Cesium provides the broader geospatial context.
In Rhino, the model can be developed and understood through its geometry, scale, orientation, and spatial relationships. Once brought into Cesium, the same model can be viewed in relation to terrain, surrounding buildings, landscape, and the wider geographic environment.
This leads to a question that I find particularly interesting:
What can we understand differently when a designed form is placed within its real-world geographic context?
I think this connection has potential for architecture, urban design, landscape, infrastructure, and other spatial workflows where a 3D model needs to be understood not only as an isolated object, but in relation to its surroundings.
Rhino model visualised in Cesium within its broader 3D geographic context.
I’m also exploring other ways of connecting Rhino and Cesium beyond this KMZ-based workflow, and I’d be interested to hear how others in the Cesium community approach the relationship between design models and geospatial context.
I’ve documented the broader project and its context in English on my project page:
Rhino → Cesium Workflow
A more detailed step-by-step workflow is also available on the AppliCraft website (in Japanese):
Rhino × GIS — Sharing Rhino Models with Cesium ion