Sorry, the Pattern tool is not what I and many others are describing when asking for such a feature.
The Pattern tool in Shapr3D is a convenient way to duplicate a shape into many independent copies at once. Each subsequent copy generated is a distinct object completely unrelated to others.
What I and many others are asking for (in fact I can see from the Search function that your customers have been begging you to provide it for years) is a true Array modifier, i.e. a tool that duplicates several instances of a base object, so that when we edit this base object later on, all other occurrences of that object are also modified accordingly.
Alternately, this could also be a 2-step creation process, involving the concept of groups (that do not exist either in Shapr3D!) with first the creation of a “component” (like in SketchUp) then its copy/duplication X times. In such a way that, say, the rotation of one of the duplicated components in the world view does not affect (does not rotate) any of its other occurrences whatsoever; but the rotation of a component, after having entered this component grouped view, rotates all other linked instances exactly the same way at the same time. In a fell sweep.
This basic feature exists in all CAD softwares on the market, including free ones like Blender. Whether it is called “array”, “symbols”, “components”, “instances”, “occurrences”… they are the same concept. What is puzzling is this is available everywhere else except in Shapr3D.
What your are asking your customers you charge a lot for instead is to duplicate a shape for example 100 times (with the Copy tool, or more conveniently as you said, with the Pattern tool) and when the design has to be changed later on, instead of modifying the details of the base object once, we have to edit that object first, then repeat the exact same manual modifications again… 100 times in a row! This is insane, I couldn’t believe the feature didn’t exist in the first place. It is absolutely out of the question for us to have to proceed in such an absurdly inefficient way, even for something as simple as a chamfer.
So the important question is: are you currently working on the development of such a true component array feature, and what is the current ETA?