Just an auto survey :)

Need help? We are here.
1

Hello, I am seeing the advantages of the new update.

Without a doubt, the new functions give more precision to the designs in real time.

And I think the problem is in the name of this new history function.

I mean this function is good but it goes beyond just being a history of what is done.

That’s why many see it the first time as something tedious or useless, don’t misunderstand, the problem is that people are not seeing the advantages. Or maybe it has not been explained well, or maybe we are naturally or tend not to study things and we want everything quickly.

There is also a line between complexity and simplicity that this program always had.

On the other hand, I remember reading other people’s complaints in the past because they couldn’t do much more with shapr3d.

And now that more things can be done, they also complain :slight_smile:

In short, I think that what many want from shapr3d is simplicity and at the same time doing more things.

Well, I’m not complaining :slight_smile: I just ask that Shapr 3D have animation in their designs, so we can see our models in motion :slight_smile:

And one more small detail,

I remember that the sketches, when there were many, made the program slow. and I think that since they cannot be deleted now, the software freezes and restarts many times. I don’t know if the same thing happens to others, but I’ve seen it. and I know that in the past updates have been made to make the software work more fluidly, that’s why I ask if the sketches have something to do with it.

For the rest, I am happy with the progress that Shapr3D is making. Thank you for such excellent software.

7 Likes
2

I’ll respectfully disagree, and i’ve read and been a part of many of the conversations over the past 2 weeks with these complaints. Some have been addressed by shapr team and will be addressed with updates, others have not been answered yet. I’ll agree that some posts seem more like venting than finding solutions.

The major crux and the majority of the complaints have to do with the sudden change being applied to old projects that absolutely DO NOT and CAN NOT take any advantage from the new HBPM. Couple that with the complete change to the way things need to be done now due to the changes, and you have a drastically altered workflow from what we were used to for sometimes years prior.

This couldn’t be clearer than by the sheer number of people that were so used to having a non-cluttered workspace and deleted old, un-used sketches suddenly realizing that’s now no longer possible. Of course this will breed discontent, that’s human nature. Especially for those that did not ask for or expect this update.

This is not trivial, it’s also not a desire to “not learn” the new way. Its a disruption to projects that have been in progress, sometimes for months or years with little actual benefit to those projects. Many rightly feel that we cannot work at the same pace as we have prior, and now have to take time out to re-learn how to use what were basic functions before.

The changes and advantages have been explained, tutorials and videos have been linked.

The thing is, they will only apply to future projects. I currently have over 20 projects in progress prior in various stages of development and prototyping prior to this update, again, this does nothing for them unless I recreate every part which is just not gonna happen unless I’m compensated for the hundreds of hours it would take to do so haha

This post makes it sound like we’re complaining for no reason. There are numerous reasons, just because they don’t apply to certain users who asked for or can make use of this update from the jump, doesn’t make them not true. For anyone to pretend otherwise is to ignore the evidence and alienate a large group of users further.

I for one think there are certain features that would have added to the functionality of the program much more and would have been easier to implement. Just like you think animation is important (actually believe we’ve discussed this prior, though that may have been another user).

I will agree with your contention that the history and sketches are affecting performance. Though, you will be repeatedly told that that’s just not true :wink: unless you can prove it is. I’ll speak from experience on that one.

5 Likes
3

please don’t take it personal

It is impossible for me to give a general opinion
, because it is impossible for me to know every person who uses this program.

It’s just an opinion about something I’ve noticed, but as I said, I don’t know everyone here nor do their jobs.

Well I hope that your questions are answered by the shapr3d team and that you have many successes in your work.

4

You can still work on old projects with the new app. You just don’t get the parametric capabilities with pre-existing bodies. Any new bodies in a project can take advantage of the parametric features and you can still do direct-modeling on the pre-existing bodies.

As someone said, the beta had been out for over a year, so it’s not like there had been no warning. Even if you didn’t want to use it for production work, you could have dabbled with it and provided feedback. I used it most of that time, so this switchover was a relief more than a curse. Back then, if you did something in the beta, you couldn’t take everything back to the release version in one shot, only the bodies and sketches in separate export/import operations.

5

Well, there was absolutely no warning that I would wake up one day and the program would be switched over to the new version with no option to update or not. I can’t even think of another piece of software that works that way. Imagine if Java or Python or MSSQL or Firefox or IE or anything just updated to the latest release unconditionally and didn’t have a fallback plan.

And I have never spent time on beta programs in my life because I simply don’t have time to debug other people’s code. It’s nice that some people here did it, but given the choice of “dabbling” and doing something else that needs attention, I’ll do something else. This was the worst rollout I’ve ever seen.

But it’s all good. The developers have made it clear that it’s a tiny minority that is having problems, and it’s only because we didn’t even have an hour to go through a video tutorial they made. But I found a workaround that gets me where I need to be, and I’m back up to speed where I used to be.

2 Likes
6

No personal offense taken my friend. You provided your opinion, I simply gave the counter argument.

That’s my entire point! that this is only useful for brand new projects and has completely zero benefit for existing ones without completely redoing every body from scratch. The whole having it part way with parametric vs direct on certain parts vs others just further complicates things and exacerbates the frustrations.

Counter, I had zero clue this was coming out, or in beta, or even being developed. How would someone have known without looking for it? When I open the app, I immediately go into my projects. That’s my workflow since I’m more concerned with work than with testing things out.

To say there was warning is flat out false. If shapr wanted everyone to know this was coming, there would have been an in app notification. Every app has in app notifications for changes so it’s not like it couldn’t have been done.

1 Like
7

No, parametric and direct modeling are two completely different paradigms. And Shapr3D, which has always been a direct modeling tool has suddenly switched to parametric approach.

I was certainly not one of them. Shapr3D was perfect for what I was using it for. Fast, efficient, no competition when it comes to working on iPad.

Now this is (slowly) being taken away by adding fancy functions that big products have, yet it is nowhere close to them.

1 Like
8

Hi @Jirka , can you help us understand what is it that now you can’t do, or find harder to do, or have to do completely differently compared to the previous version of Shapr3D?

1 Like
9

Hello Istvan, I think I have already described this a few times (with visualization, parametric modeling etc.). But I will try to summarize this and drop you a message or mail.

10

I’d love to discuss publicly so that others can also participate in the conversation! What I’m particularly interested in is that what are the workflow changes that the recent release introduced for you? We are looking into improvements that will minimize the workflow changes for existing users.

4 Likes
11

Well, IMO many came here because it was just plain simple to create. For the “more artist than engineer crowd”. Shapr was unique. Uncluttered. Easy to learn. Instead of giving us more tools you spent the time becoming more like the others. I get it. You listened to the crowed that will make you the most money. But you might consider an artist mode that buries that stuff for those that don’t need it.

I started a 30 day trial of “Plasticity”. I WILL be making time to check it out. It claims to be for “artists”. Has a little bit different feel from the Shapr of old. I only gave it 5 minutes so far and I can tell it’s different enough that I “might” not like it. Shapr was more fluid when I first tried it for 5 minutes and was HOOKED. I was able to get more done IIRC in that same 5 minutes. Now Shapr is more cluttered …but I am getting more used to it.

For example you waste space in the toolbar by not combining boolean operations into one button, same with spline/ line tools and circle/oval. You need to click “more” to get to some often used tools as a result. Your move/copy change is a debacle. We still can’t wrap text or logos or patterns to anything without being a geometrist. Still no copy objects to others projects (asked for long ago and often). Trying to move around an object or assembly in 3d space with more precision (constraining xyz rotation) is frustrating especially with a mouse. Distance from world center/ coords would be nice. Tools don’t remember the last operation and change to a default. Being 1 mm off tapping an object changes to sketch mode. None of these are deal breakers but some are just embarrassing.

I am not sitting at Shapr now and I am still on my first cup of coffee + the gummy that helps me sleep is still wearing off. Meaning there are likely more observations I haven’t thought to include yet… If they matter.

Not trying to denigrate, trying to help Shapr evolve. You have turned shapr into more of an engineer’s tool, but haven’t really given us any cool new features lately. Like a simple gear tool maybe or a simple solids tool, wrapping… oh what we’d do for wrapping!

Long live Shapr! We love you guys… :blush:

PS: Still no fillets in sketch mode.

2 Likes
12

Yep… and trimming tool.

Trims just fine, creates a new point where the intersection is. But then doesn’t add intersection constraint to that point resulting in a potentially open sketch if you alter another dimension. Never fully understood why that’s the case, kinda defeats the point of trimming if you have to manually add it in.

13

Why do yiu feel that it’s not unique now?

Why do yiu feel that it ‘s cluttered bow? The UI has one more button compared to the previous version. What makes you feel that it’s cluttered? We’d love to fix it.

These have not changed since 2020. Is it more disturbing now for some reason? If yes, we’d love to understand why, so that we can fix it.

Yes, we are changing that back.

All valid points, important feature gaps. All of these will add additional complexity to the product.

2 Likes
14

The ability to directly edit splines and lofts live eliminates the need to repeatedly undo and rework my designs, saving significant time

The introduction of breakpoints is a game changer for client collaboration. I can now create variations of my designs version 2, version 3, what ever, a lot easier

The ability to control entire bodies through sketch planes is another great addition. Design consistency and simplifies revisions. If I need to adjust core elements, all associated objects update automatically saving my brain from frustration (I screw up alot)

All these improvements have significantly changed my design game, for the better. It lets me fearlessly experiment, knowing I can always revisit and refine details later with fresh eyes

So to answer the survey, and the apparent unpopular opinion around this form, I love it, and don’t want to go back to something I now see that has limitation. Look, all I want is for the large constraint icon to be fixed on the sketch planes.

7 Likes
15

People are resistant to change, even when that change may be for the better once they can shift their mindset. I worked 30 years developing software in several different languages and each required a different way of thinking. I guess maybe my brain is wired for change as a result.

2 Likes
16

I’ll admit, I don’t frequently use splines, especially since there is currently no 3d spline tool available and topic has been shut down before. Although now that you can technically have 2 guide curves on the same plane for lofts, it will be more helpful.

I would agree with this, IF the constraints were actually tied between the two. By that I mean that the body is tied to the sketch, but the sketch is not tied to the body. Move/rotate a body, sketch stays put. Modify a body, sketch stays the same. It’s a one way street with the dependencies. The separation of them by moving a body without the sketch following also creates a huge visual and cognitive disconnect between the body that’s now dependent on the sketch(es) that may be nowhere near it.

This is just a broad dismissive statement. It’s similar to how these complaints were originally greeted by shapr until more and more started rolling in prompting quickly upcoming updates/changes. I’ve repeatedly explained why this is much more than just resistance to change, to you in particular above. So yes i’ll agree our brains are probably wired differently haha

Also I do believe that more of the resistance/complaints are about users telling shapr what’s actually important to them. Whether that’s ultimately listened to and implemented is not up to us, but if it’s not said, then for a lot it might be to just leave the program and look for others. We’re looking to make the program better, not take it back completely.

1 Like
17

As AP said, extremely dismissive, it’s much more. We’re trying to identify problems and brainstorm potential solutions that could even bring a smoother workspace and interactions with the UI for users who love the new update. Trying to bridge the gaps in way peoples brains function for a better experience all around.

I’d love to experiment more with parametric but I’m still copying and using bodies when I can because sketching is just insanely laggy since the parametric release.

Example of my sketching experience since the parametric release:

1 Like
18

Excuse me, but I’m trying to understand why this is so disconcerting. In the past, any moves or changes to a body would have created exactly the same visual and cognitive disconnect from the sketch, but like many people, you probably just deleted what was often regarded (by many) as a disposable sketch. Now, we can just hide it instead to eliminate the cognitive load. So far, no harm, no foul.

However, should you ever wish to take advantage of the original sketch, it is relatively easy to find by simply selecting the body and seeing the associated items in the history list (it gets easier with a little practice, ideally on a backup copy of your design).

Select the sketch and experiment with changes. We can now direct model changes on the sketch and see the body change in real time – while still safely subject to any desired constraints on the sketch. You can temporarily place a breakpoint after the sketch history step if that is easier to visualize, or not, and the bodies will reflect the sketch changes even if they have be subsequently moved or modified – if possible.

Sometimes, things downstream will break, but undo is your friend. After a while, you’ll start to understand why some later operations break, and how to fix the missing reference or plane, axis, etc. It sounds more complicated than it is – just remember that every broken step must see all of the same Types of inputs that you gave it when you performed that operation, e.g. faces, axes, planes, etc.

I apologize for butting in to this conversation. I’m a lot like @TheBum – I actually enjoy learning new stuff and probably have a lot more free time to learn it. I’m retired but I still remember the stress of deadlines and my only goal to help you become even more productive and hopefully enjoy it more.

2 Likes
19

True, however this is precisely the point. It previously created a disconnect but it was in no way tied to that sketch. No relations, no history, nada. We’re talking apples and oranges to use the old phrase.

Hiding the sketch is a wet bandaid desperately trying to hold things together, especially when the body is still tied to it. To take anything close to full advantage of the HBPM it’s necessary to have that connection, I understand that and know why that is in place. But the way it is set up currently it’s a half in half out situation of a connection between sketches and bodies without fulling committing to those connections. This doesn’t allow for a seamless ability to switch back and forth to alter and adjust using the sketches which is the new workflow that is being asked to be adopted.

For example, if you have a sketch that is on one plane that forms the front face of a part, but that part has to be rotated 60* along X, 22* on Y, moved up 200mm, back 45.5mm to be in alignment with other parts. Sure you can select the part, call up the sketch, but it’s nowhere near the part now. You also have to scroll through and search through the history to find that sketch. another disconnect i’ve brought up. How would that make it easier to adjust the sketch to make the model fit if there is adjustment required? Logically that sketch should follow that part and still align with that face.

The update seems more a combo platter approach to HBPM and direct modeling vs an all in investment. Couple that with the sudden change from direct to parametric and there’s bound to be pushback. Justifiable in my opinion.

As I’ve previously stated, I have plenty of desire to learn, not particularly in the middle of projects that the update has no use for… but future ones, absolutely. I actually understand these changes and implementations. Having come up using CAD on much more complex and feature packed systems in college including parametric systems, direct, surface modeling and complex rendering programs. However that’s also why I’m bringing these things up and trying to explain it as concisely as possible to try and bridge the gap of why certain users are upset and frustrated, while others seem unphased and unbothered.

20

Geez, I actually enjoy learning new stuff too. and I’ve also been writing software for over 30 years, and have software running everywhere. I’m learning Django as we speak. Learning never, ever stops.

But a lot of us that had a bunch of legacy models and were in the middle of a project (and probably don’t have time for beta testing or even care about beta testing), had real problems, as evidenced by the collection of updates that are coming soon. Even if I could hide a sketch while in isolation mode, that would be huge, but I can’t even do that. It used to be a breeze to just delete the sketch, but now it requires a bunch of extra steps.

All of this could have been avoided by one simple dialog box that almost every software has: “A new version is available. Do you want to update now?” If that is not possible in their framework, then that is a major design flaw, not a user flaw. It’s very common that people use an older version until they are ready to transition, and accept the fact that new features won’t be available to them. I routinely use virtual machines to test new updates before moving forward because half of my customers require it, so enough with “not wanting to learn new things.” I’m just trying to run a business. But like Rita said in her very succinct email, “As of now, this is how Shar3D works; in case this changes, I’ll make sure to let you know.”