I am finding that exporting files as step format is producing poor quality geometry when opened in other CAD software. Normally step format is the most robust. This occurs even with sample content such as the magicmouse.shapr or massagetool.shapr as well as my own geometry.
Normally the bad geometry is missing faces or partially formed shells in the case of the massagetool.shapr. I am seeing this when importing the files into Fusion360, Moi3D and Cyborge3D PowerTranslators. Is there a better format to use when exporting from Shapr3d?
Yes, X_T is always the best choice, with F360 it will work perfectly.
Testing with x_t and x_b formats from the Massage Tool.shapr import into Fusion360 fails. The files seem suspiciously small and do not have the normal Parasolid icon. Generally x_t and x_b formats are not useful for neutral file handovers, step format is accepted, iges format normally invites complaints as it is so dated. Even this forum does not allow x_t and x_b uploads, so I cannot share the files directly.
Without having the files it’s hard to tell what’s wrong. Can you open a support ticket and attach the data?
I stopped using Shapr for a bit, but this week I thought I would have a look and see if there have been any updates. I was very pleased to see that the problems with step and x_t file export have been resolved and the geometry appears perfectly in other applications.
Thank you so much! I can return to using Shapr3D with confidence.