Connected Parametric and Direct - Modeling UX

Please follow the format below for requesting a feature.

I work a lot with the arrawos to drag the dimensions to what i want, especially when i work with holes and other diameters. I would love to see the functionality also in parametric so if i change a dimension i can do it via the arrows or the Sketch. I hope it is possible to connect the sketches with the directly changed model. I think this would keep the simplicity of Shapr to work on the Model and not only on the Sketch.

Hi @keksboy , direct modeling is not related to arrows or push and pull. The interaction model will stay the exact same even after the introduction of history based modeling.

I recommend reading this article to better understand what direct modeling actually is.

So no, Direct Modeling is not pushing and pulling geometry. Yes, often the interaction model that CAD vendors created to access Direct Modeling operations is push-and-pull. But Direct Modeling operations can be driven and defined by parameters too, just like any other parametric modeling operation. It’s really this simple. So what does this actually mean?

Im sorry i posted in the wrong category.
Im testing the Beat and had no possibility to change directly the diameter of holes and so.

It is possible, it’s just that the default operation is the Move/Rotate tool, and before it was the Offset Face tool (we might change this). Simply select the Offset Face tool after selecting the hole.

Thanks for the Help but the change is in this case not connected to the sketch

It doesn’t have to be connected to the sketch:

thats true. Its a suggestion form myself and i think i would be quite handy. keeping how i do CAD with Shapr and making it parametric

I’m working on a possible shortcut which could be suitable for your use case :wink:


overall i am very happy with parametric modeling an the new UI. keep going like this. I love Shapr, it is a great CAD-program and i am sure Shapr is becoming more and more common even in big Companies.

Thanks for the link to this article. It is an interesting look behind the curtain at how the machine gets stuff done. It really clarifies a lot about what “Direct Modeling Is” for me.

1 Like

@Zoli would this be making the feature and sketch co-dependent? Modifying the sketch changes the feature, modifying the feature adjusts the parent sketch?

Edit: just reread the thread, you’d mean a shortcut to select offset vs move/rotate?

No, you read it right for the first time :slight_smile: I have a possible solution to edit holes based on their original sketches by selection. You will get 2 controls in the modeling space, one for modifying topology with a new operation, the other for manipulating the original reference to get the results. This way, you will get much more control over your model. I can’t wait to release it for the Beta and learn from your feedbacks :crossed_fingers:


Nice. I like that selecting a feature filters the history steps, but this would show the parent sketch automatically if the feature is directly created from the sketch? Like an extrusion?

I’m looking forward to trying what you come up with.

Yes, here it is:


Hey @Zoli to clarify what I’m seeing, selecting the surface activates the dependent sketch.

However, if you directly modify the surface, say offset the surface you selected, does the sketch change to follow the geometry? That’s what I was originally asking about.

The video suggests that it automatically activates (I’m saying activates but it’s more of a visible state than being in actual sketch mode) the dependent sketch to drive the part. Then you would modify the sketch to drive the changes.

This would be faster than selecting the body or feature, and then selecting the dependent sketch from the history.

Edit: would reverse driving the sketch be feasible or beneficial? This is just an idea that may cause more problems than it would seem to solve.

That’s exactly what Fusion does with pull operations. If it’s able figure out the driving sketch, then it modifies it - also it only works in very simple situations - if not, then an additional face offset operation is created by the end of the timeline. I think this is pretty unreliable. I want the users to be more in control in this case. That’s what this prototype is about

1 Like

I see. I wasn’t aware Fusion did that. I primarily use it for sheet metal projects.

I’m always excited to use what you guys come up with! Thanks @Zoli