# Bad geo?

**URL:** <https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956>\
**Category:** Modeling Questions\
**Created:** [October 16, 2022, 4:44pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956 "2022-10-16T16:44:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bbuxton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@bbuxton](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/bbuxton)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2022, 4:44pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956/1 "2022-10-16T16:44:53Z")

</div>

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?

 ![shapr bad geo](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/uploads/shapr3d/original/3X/c/6/c62663260ca6c7c5786feabc5cb7e26b2fbfb458.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Istvan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.shapr3d.com/istvan/32/23668_2.png) [@Istvan](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/Istvan)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2022, 4:57pm UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956/2 "2022-10-16T16:57:20Z")

</div>

Yes, X\_T is always the best choice, with F360 it will work perfectly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bbuxton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@bbuxton](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/bbuxton)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2022, 12:53am UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956/3 "2022-10-17T00:53:54Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Istvan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.shapr3d.com/istvan/32/23668_2.png) [@Istvan](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/Istvan)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2022, 9:20am UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956/4 "2022-10-17T09:20:22Z")

</div>

Without having the files it’s hard to tell what’s wrong. Can you [open a support ticket](https://support.shapr3d.com/hc/en-us/requests/new) and attach the data?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bbuxton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@bbuxton](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/u/bbuxton)\
**Post date:** [December 9, 2022, 6:56am UTC](https://discourse.shapr3d.com/t/bad-geo/21956/5 "2022-12-09T06:56:09Z")

</div>

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.