Why do you hate them?
2 Likes
What would make it stand out is what (hopefully) already makes you like Shapr3D 
:
- great UX
- improved productivity: a tool that helps you create great things instead of something you fight with
- first-class mobile experience
- seamless transition between devices
Our goal is to keep everything that makes Shapr3D stand out as a direct modeler today and make it even more powerful by allowing you to incorporate parametric design in your workflow if and when you want to. While adding design history, we’re following the same design principles we’ve been following the past 7 years: creating something that’s easy to learn, eliminates friction from your workflow and acts like an extension of your brain, so that you can focus on what matters, creating great products to solve problems for your customers.
If you haven’t done so, I encourage you sign up for the beta program and give us early feedback about whether we manage to live up to this vision.
4 Likes
@Peter_Gy thank you for your detailed, thoughtful response! I appreciate it….and I am excited!
1 Like
I am able to flesh things out so much faster and easier than ANY modeling system I have ever used. And I have tried several over many years. You might consider forking Shapr off into two products if you must change the fundamental way Shapr works now. Why must modeling be for engineers only. (Or engineering for that matter… many don’t do that well). No other product works so easily or even considers the pen as an input tool or touch for that matter. They are much more natural to use a puck or a mouse. Old engineers have a hard time changing and seem to bristle at Shapr, often. History based can be miserable when changes need to be made, even subtle ones, all the steps you have to undo/ lose on the way, infuriating! And then sometimes they won’t let you go back.
Your product is very unique. I hope you don’t lose that. With the other products I was able to walk, With Shapr I can fly.
4 Likes
Alright, I’ll wait and see. You guys have done great things so far. Now what about the cost? I am on a fixed income. 
Still, my biggest fear is Autodesk is going to buy Shapr.
2 Likes
The old workflow will remain the same: until you open the History sidebar, you won’t even notice that we now have this functionality. We might change some defaults (eg. to keep the sketch-body connections or whether offset face or extrude is the default tool when a face is selected), but based on our experience with the early alpha builds we are confident that it won’t affect the good-old direct modeling workflows negatively.
I will not (and probably legally can not ) make any forward-looking promises, especially binding ones, but as of today neither moving design history to a separate price tier, nor getting acquired by Autodesk is amongst our short-term plans.
3 Likes
The plan is world domination.
10 Likes
The same thing we try to do every night, Pinky….
3 Likes
With great power comes great responsibility? 
2 Likes
Normally I don’t do reviews but I will express some things.
There is a lot of competition in design programs, but I chose shapr3D because I was impressed by its ease to build or design without having to switch from one option to another, or open another menu with thousands of tools as it happens in other programs, unlike shapr3d which it allows you many times to change or model instantly on the work that is being done.
This gives shapr3d a huge advantage and that advantage if someone outside bought the company would surely disappear or make the program useless in order to promote their own design programs.
Now if the changes are to improve without losing the previous ease of design, I would like Shapr3d to have the option to simulate movement, for example a gear, and also have the option to simulate, cut and create G code for CNC machines.
6 Likes
This is amazing news! One question lots of us are probably wondering is, will you implement calculations within user variables as you implement the parametric side of the program? Coming from Fusion360 a year ago that was a bit of a change to not have parametric variables available, but since you are implementing it that would be awesome.
For example: user variable width = user variable height divided by 3 (a very simple example). Things like that make parametric modeling worth the effort for designers to use variables.
1 Like
Hi @PickleR , yes, we’ll have parameters.
5 Likes
Svg import, packaging, motion simulation, sketch lines can be adjusted and deformed, UV mapping, shadows can be adjusted, parametric modeling and so on are all waiting to go online every day. I hope to realize it as soon as possible and get out of the PC misery.
2 Likes
Are there any plans for reverse engineering, like working with 3d scan files.
1 Like
Not in the short term – that’s a huge task by itself and we want to focus on making the foundational experience of parametric modeling awesome first.
2 Likes
Go it, Thank you.
Have been waiting so long for this. Can’t wait for this to be shipped.
Simplicity and speed is one of the great benefits of Shapr, so after leaving Fusion 360 I can’t say I have missed history-based modelling. The reason is, it takes more consideration to set up and quite often, changing an historic parameter leads to excessive waiting and crashes. However I’m in favour of parametric modelling as far as defining sketches as a basis for a 3d extrusion, so that you can change a sketch later and the 3d object will follow. Currently a common approach is to delete sketches constantly after extrusion to keep the project tidy - I often do this myself. The ability to define measurements as copies - eg screw holes - change one to change them all would be a simple and beneficial approach. I just don’t hope this ends up becoming overly complicated and unpractical. The drawback with parametric is always that there are many calculations and odds and ends that needs to be solved every time a parameter is changed.
That’s not necessarily a problem with History Based Parametric Modeling, more like a problem with the implementation of it. While it will always take more calculation to regenerate everything, than modifying the geometry directly at the end, it can be performant and reasonably stable too. Error handling is also very important, so when they happen, they are easy to see and fix.
3 Likes
NOOOOOOOOO! Autodesk is awful!!!
2 Likes