I upgraded. I do not see a change in the performance.
I guess I don’t understand, but why does it fall upon the user to improve the performance by merging history? It seems to me the software should handle processes that it creates. It should especially resolve those that are creating performance issue. If it is up to the user to solve the performance degradation, the problem within the software is not remedied.
May you consider a design idea? Create a key field that will link each sketch with each body and every subsequent sketch with that modifies same body. Each sketch will get a key which links it to the body made from it. Each subsequent sketch that is not the first sketch but modifies the body ties to that first sketch via the key but with a sequence number added. Sketch 88, Body 88 is an example of the first sketch and the body. Examples of subsequent sketches that alter the body but are not part of the first sketch would look like this Sketch 88-1, 88-2, etc. This shows the association of the first sketch and body. They are number 88. Sketches that modify the body are numbered by the second number. They are 88-1,88-2. The program will identify that the subsequent sketches modified the body.
I wonder too if somehow something like this suggestion could help manage the history? Could it essentially become the merge that you are asking us to do? Instead, it becomes an automatic merge and a way for the user to keep track of which sketch goes with which body and all of any number of subsequent sketches altering the body. The user could browse or search through the history for the key field. I wonder if this could solve a few problems?
You can still allow the user to name the sketch and body, and subsequent sketches. The key fields should remain a part of the name. I know on the Mac that the name field is sizable so that the whole name is viewable. On the iPad the name field is limited making a long name difficult to discern since most of it is hidden. The other problems it would solve makes it worth considering.
Note, I have done my part to address the speed issue, because I have no time at the moment to wait for speed improvements. I have upgraded to a Mac Studio, after finding poor results from the iPad Pro with 8 GB and 16 GB RAM and a Mac mini M2 Pro. My drawing is an architectural drawing which is well within Shapr3D’s capability and intent. I am holding onto my iPad Pro M1 for viewing. My Mac Studio still shows some lag, but snappy lag. It lags but catches up quickly. I will use it for the bulk of my drawing process.
Shapr3D has proven very useful. As of late, it has become a problem to solve. I sincerely hope it get back on track.
Thanks