Indeed this is really needed to be used in professional environments. Is there a specific time on the roadmap? We need to consider to buy Solidworks license and go for Solidworks or Shapr3d.
In that case a cloud library is a must.
In the meantime, how can i export only a body? If i isolate this the whole drawing is export with it.
Half a thought on assemblies - Perhaps assemblies could use an approach from software development and be implemented like $INCLUDE/#include statements or links/aliases. For instance, the Items panel could have a master folder under which are folders referencing separate files (the subassemblies) from the library. Those files might be imported or just overlaid when viewed or unhidden, might be read-only (so as not to be changed or damaged inadvertently) and would maintain their original x, y, z coordinates (unlike imported files). I think such an approach would be very helpful with version control and iterations on subassembly development.
@Istvan
I am “forced” to use Inventor at a class I am taking. Even though the model crashes when doing changes, and Inventor is in general a pain to work in compared to Shapr3D, I do miss an assembly feature in Shapr3D. So another vote for assembly
Other features missing in Shapr3D:
Thread tool
Sketch Fillet
Custom Info box in Drawings and Parts list
Library (Screws, profiles, etc etc)….McMaster is a great source to download files from, but it would be nice to have a direct Library in Shapr3D.
Joint constrains (motion) + animation. Being able to test out mechanical functions.
Working in Parametric Inventor do remind me why Direct modeling is so much better in many cases. But Parametric do have it`s advantages. So combining the best of two worlds would be a game changer- @istvan you have already hinted on bringing some Parametric features ? Any news on that?
Also, 3D modeling in Blender and other programs like Unity, Unreal? are also doing some impressive stuff.
Being able to add surface texture and 3D print it f.ex. Even quickly build Lego masterpieces.
How can you consider this a serious CAD design system for engineering when you can create assemblies with mates, as soon as you move an aligned component it breaks the alignment.
I have for years played with Shapr3D and have paid for a subscription, but as others have said if you want to model an assembly with moving parts, you have to use another CAD system, which are free (Fusion 360, Onshape), if you had this i think you would get a lot more custom from serious design engineers, including myself been using CAD for over 35 years, proffesionaly use CATIA V6 and NX, but love shapr3d, but only for standalone parts, no use at all for assemblies with moving parts.
is there a timeline for a proper assembly environment, one with actual mates / joints that allow design of real world assemblies that maintain their mates, ie kinematics, as a professional design engineer for over 35 years i use CATIA V6, NX, Solid Edge, Solidworks and would consider swapping to Shapr3D but no point until you have an Assembly environment, it is no use to be able to assemble models statically, as soon as you move something it breaks the model. No use for commercial design of assemblies or designing components to fit existing components as there are no mates.
For such a wonderful product how can you miss one of the most important features on a true engineering CAD system, unless you dont want to be considered an alternative to the £25,000 per seat CAD systems, it would be a no brainer for me, but not without a True Engineering assembly environment.
You really are missing a golden opportunity here.
I work for a very large american company and would consider swapping to shapr3d if it had an assembly ability, with mated components.
