I want to draw out circles at a specific diameter, but I find myself having to divide by two all the time in order to model. Is there a way to draw a circle and set the diameter instead of just the radius?
Not currently, and this is one of the main things I wish was implemented.
Not possible. I’ve been bashing them for this for a couple of years. But the don’t care. It’s a PITA to have to divide a hole/drill size in half to enter into this program. It also increases the chances for catastrophic errors. So don’t hold your breath.
I`m waiting for this feature too. It looks like a small detail but truly I have always to check twice what is the real dimensions the circles will be.
1.Ignore the dumb radius label and input your diameter anyway, like a boss
2. Flip the padlock off the dimension label you just input
3. Scale-> -50%
I’ma lose sleep over this thread.
Simple answer is no. I suspect they have bigger fish to fry.
Circles are described by diameter, Arcs by radius …
That’s what I’ve been saying for over 2 years. They are not listening. I think that at this point they have me blocked and ignore my posts. There are a lot of half bakes features. All of which if not fully implemented are either useless or require work around. Like using a calculator to get the radius of a circle after measuring the diameter of the hole. Holes, drills and readers are defined by diameter. Having to use a calculator is stupid and adds unnecessary opportunity for errors. Or refusing to create a text tool so a forum member create an app to take text and translate it to an importable format. Or telling people to export and use an existing, mature program like Fusion 360. Or not having a parts library or a way to create threads or even an array tool. Or even having a public road map so we can decide to stick it out or dump it and move on. All while claiming to be a professional grade 3D modeler rivaling the existing ones. The professional grade claim at this point is only supported by the use of Parasolid as the rendering engine. It’s not a complete tool even in the few areas where. It is fleshed out enough to be useful. If I had a CNC machine I would have to use Fusion 360 or some other program or programs to generate models and tool paths. Still, I see the great potential of Shapr3D, But they need to finish some feature sets before adding new ones or risk losing people like me.
Yeah, I didn’t stay past the trial period. Shapr har potential, and is superior for some people. But for a wider reach, they should focus on and fix things like this.