It is undeniable that Shapr3D is indeed the most powerful and easy-to-use modeling software so far. I have also been a paying user for three years, but the recent new parametric version has really reduced the efficiency of my workflow. It’s not that the parameterization function is bad, I just hope that users can have more choices. For example, when creating a new project, they can choose whether to enable the parameterization function, or the user can choose to enable or disable this function in the project. function, instead of forcing everyone to adapt to it. Many users, including me, like the original version, which is simple and easy to use. Now the new version not only makes it a little difficult for me to adapt, but also makes my computer more and more laggy. this is very bad
They’re likely two different code bases, since the sketch and object connection is at a very basic level. It wouldn’t be cost effective to tie up limited development resources to maintain both code bases indefinitely.
I haven’t noticed any significant performance difference, but obviously some people have. It may have something to do with the type of objects they design or variation between platforms.
I’m sure @TheBum is correct. It is impractical to maintain two different code bases, especially when the newest is more powerful and very likely to be more popular (based upon the many, many requests for history from users).
However, I’m fairly certain that any performance issues can be resolved. Some things may still need to be optimized and there are probably still some outright bugs, but bottom line, from a fundamental CAD perspective, not much has changed. All of the same information must be maintained about object properties in 3D space, and all of it must be analyzed for possible interactions with every new command.
Simple objects with simple relationships can be computed (and displayed) quickly. Very complex objects can take longer. But there is no reason that equivalent objects need be any slower than before. Very complex objects (e.g. with lots of sketch constraints) will probably take longer to compute, especially on slower hardware, but with that complexity comes vastly more power to ensure accurate designs.
But if the older way of designing is good enough for your purposes, then there should be no speed penalty once the bugs are fixed and things get optimized.
I realize that many people are currently frustrated, but think of it like buying a new car. It takes a while to get used to the new controls for climate control or entertainment (or maybe even where the key goes) but the main controls (pedals, steering, etc.) as the same as always. And after the learning curve, you’re going to get to your destinations more comfortably and reliably.
Yet, nearly every software company has multiple versions that are released in an orderly manner. A lot of end-users won’t even transition to new versions without doing their own QC on a new release internally. I’ve written software for 30 years, and I would have my feet held to the fire if I did something like this.
I wouldn’t even care if they stopped supporting the previous release, or wouldn’t support synching with it. Even a few months overlap would have been great (and no, a beta version doesn’t qualify).
The crux of the issue is this:
“However, I’m fairly certain that any performance issues can be resolved. Some things may still need to be optimized and there are probably still some outright bugs…”
Exactly. I’m sure they will be resolved eventually, but if they didn’t see them during beta testing, I’m sure it’s going to take a while. For instance, now that we can’t delete sketches, the solution is to just hide them. Well, if I’m working on an isolated sketch, “hide” doesn’t work. I have to unisolate and isolate again, and each trip leaves it spinning for about 20 seconds. Is this a bug or a feature? It’s probably a feature, because in the old version, I couldn’t hide newly created objects either in an isolated environment, but I didn’t need to hide them then. All I’m doing is modifying a few existing objects, and it definitely takes a lot longer, especially with copying. Maybe it would be different if I was starting a project from scratch, but I’m trying to get a prototype out the door.
All totally fair and valid points. To be honest, I didn’t even consider the possibility of two versions side by side to be a realistic possibility. Admittedly, my point of view is probably tainted because I still mentally envision Shapr3D as an Apple iOS type of application because that is where I started using it. And the Apple iOS ecosystem has never has a way to handle traditional software upgrades.
Obviously, Shapr has since grown to encompass MacOS and Windows, so my too quick assumption is not a valid issue. In addition, it is clearly possible to run the standard and beta versions side by side, while still keeping track of who is subscribed or not. So maybe they should reconsider and have both a standard and new version available at the same time. It would certainly make some people happy.
Meanwhile, I’m probably still going to be an enthusiastic geek who loves shiny new toys and just can’t understand why other people don’t feel the same way. 