If performance issues cannot be resolved,I have to give up shapr3d

I understand what you say. The designs that you shared contain 8,000 and 16,000 bodies. We don’t work well at the moment with that many bodies. We might improve this in the future. If you have performance issues with designs where you have fewer bodies (less than a few thousand) and run into performance issues, please share that design with us or provide another way to reproduce the performance issue and we’ll fix it.

So that we are crystal clear:

You offer me no solutions for recovering this project that represents a year of work and investment into using your toolset and backed by 3 or 4 years of Shapr3D subscriptions before that?

I’d love to if you could share the problematic design! We can’t do much with 8,000 parts or 16,000 parts at the moment. I don’t really understand what you mean by recovering. Do you want us to delete somethign from your design? We can do even that if you tell me what you want to delete, but probably it’s easier if you just do it for yourself.

  1. Select what you want to delete
  2. Delete it
  3. Merge the history

The result of this will be that

  • there won’t be any history
  • the deleted bodies won’t be included in the design anymore

You said that this does not lead to the expected result, and the design still keeps the history after exporting and reimporting it to another workspace. The example file where you experience this problem was not included in your previous comment. Can you please share it? You can DM it or email it (istvan@…) to me if it’s confidential.

Good god man. I want you to tell me how to actually export part of a shapr file into a new shapr file without the history following into the new file.

What I’m telling you is that when following those simple 1.2.3 steps.

your statement: “there won’t be any history” - is patently untrue.

proof, from the project I sent already -

After merging history and exporting this project from another project this new file, with only four cylinders has 15,454,409 entries in the HistoryNames table.

The histories aren’t in the UI but they are there in the database of the new .shapr file, screwing it up just like the large one.

This is not the history, but the unique IDs of the topologies.

"This is not history… " - you have got to be kidding, right?

Okay, not to be rude but I guess you just aren’t understanding my point and I can’t be any clearer. Can you escalate this to someone technical or get a second pair of eyes on it please?

Those four cylinders are not the cause of these rows, these rows came from the origin file that generated this as an export and these rows are not inconsequential to performance or stability.

15,454,409 rows represents the Lion’s share of 1,537,515,520 bytes (1.55 GB on disk) (uncompressed)

Removing them
the resulting db file would be: 7,720,960 bytes (7.7 MB on disk)

Anyone that says there isn’t a performance impact between a 1.4gb sql lite db and a 7.7mb sql lite db isn’t thinking clearly.

But… I can’t remove these without breaking this project file because (some of them) are needed.

No. That’s not the history. Those are the topology IDs. Discussing the technical details of why that’s there is beyond the scope of this forum. If you want to have your performance issue fixed, please share the problematic design.

I’m getting second hand PTSD for you Graffitilogic. I feel your pain


This design has four cylinders only. It has been history merged, so as you say the history should be gone. No way that could be impacting it, right?


When opening this file on an iPad Pro, it crashes while loading. Importing… Reading model elements 4 of 4… Processing… [crash]

I can, however open this file on my Mac without it crashing.

Console Log from the Session during iPad crash:


If these were my favorite four cylinders in the world, how would I recover them?

It loads on my computer in 20 seconds. Can you share more information about your config? iPad version, iPadOS version, Shapr3D version.

As a workaround you can try to export it to Parasolid (X_T) and import that to the other workspace.

See it from the crash report, we’ll try to reproduce it in a similar environment.

Yep loads on my Mac, as well. Just, you know - longer than it should take for 4 objects and a merged history. Just not the iPad Pro. I’m aware of the X_T even STEP file workaround but my thoughts were if we can save this project file we might learn something along the way for the iPad-Only folks.

1 Like

Yes, the load time is suspicious, we’ll look into this problem, and deliver a fix shortly as soon as we manage to reproduce the issue.

I have noticed a drop in performance after the update with parametric history.

The drop in performance seems to be getting worse as the projects progress.
Performance had not improved even after merging and/or deleting large parts of the model and continues to behave poorly as if history/merging/deleting had not been done.


@ice - I didn’t mean to hijack your thread today I’m just incredibly frustrated.

So… if you do decide to go elsewhere - where would you go? What other sorts of tools are you evaluating? I think Shapr3D’s input mechanics were a brilliant solution to the UI challenges of most CAD apps. This was the first app that I thought really justified the iPad Pro as a content creation device. My renewal is in April, so I’ve got time to consider this but just curious what other tools the smart folks are using.
I’m staring at Blender right now trying to decide what the hell I’m seeing. :slight_smile:

Thanks for sharibg the sample file. We’ve reproduced the issue and will ship a fix with version 5.660

1 Like

I’m trying Autodesk Fusion. On iPad, Shapr3D has an absolute advantage, but as the software’s performance declines, my iPad M1 seems no longer suitable. I’ve started switching to a computer, which gives me many CAD software options. On a computer, Shapr3D doesn’t have an advantage.

This was a thorough exchange. This forum should open up its scope a bit to technical details, perhaps. I do not envy support staff right now. Finding something qualitatively comparable to Shapr3D on the iPad, especially if you’re importing STL’s for tracing (which is a game changer) is not possible. So far I’ve been redirecting my inner frustration at Autodesk developers for ignoring Apple users, which helps me cope with all this performance denial.

Similar issue and this suggestion works. It’s definitely appears to have removed the step by step lag (even moving a body).

With all due respect, a lot has gone wrong with Shapr3D since hybrid parametric modeling took place. Myself and others have brought many of the problems to your attention.

I read multiple post by others and your technical explanation as to how file size does not matter as it relates to CAD as a hybrid between parametric and direct modeling. The file sizes created by myself and others are not large. Something else is causing the problem.

I really wonder what is going on within Shapr3D. The problem is not the writing to a database, or direct modeling. Sketchup is direct modeling and it is fast, easy and reliable.

The problem is in the coding of the processes. They are poorly written causing CPU overhead. The leap to parametric modeling was either too large or poorly done. This is my estimate of what has happened.

Understand, I hope it gets fixed. I don’t want to migrate to another program. As someone else noted, Shapr3D has no advantage outside of the iPad. Is it better than Sketchup on an iPad?

Even if it gets fixed, I may migrate to Sketchup because of the features already present in it. I chose Shapr3D because I have an iPad Pro. I now own a Mac Studio just to get Shapr3D to handle my architectural drawings. This seems ridiculous.

By the way, I do not use Shapr3D on my iPad any longer because of the synchronization issues across devices. That in itself is another difficult story. I will not go into how my files run the risk of getting downgraded by Shapr3D because of this portion of poorly written code.

I am seeing small incremental improvements. Please keep making them. Get this right. For now I am relying on your efforts. I will decide what to do in phase two of my project.

A redrawing seems daunting, but staying the course seems more daunting in the long. For now, I am sticking around and hoping for the best. I will need to make another decision in a couple of months.

This is my conclusion.