I made a plant and hexagonal planter in Shapr3D. Whilst I’m pretty happy with the plant overall, I couldn’t get a realistic finish for the leaves. I rendered the model in both Cadmio and Shapr3D in order to get a descent comparison.
For Shapr3D i used Oak for the planter, marble and concrete for the stones, green ABS(#00F066) for the leaves.
Thoughts about the comparison? Pros/cons of Shapr3D/Cadmio?
I think in overall visual quality Cadmio is far better than Shapr Visualization, the materials look nicer, there are much more customization options, environments, AR, etc.
Shapr’s only advantage is face level material assign at the moment, I sometimes miss that from Cadmio. Being in the same app is not a big deal for me, I usually do visualization at the end of my workflow. During modelling simple colors are more than enough, too bad it was removed with Visualization.
Of course another point for Shapr that it’s “free”, meaning Visualzation is included in your subscription that you would pay anyways, and Cadmio costs another $10 or so. That’s life, usually you have to pay extra for the better stuff. Both apps are still really affordable compared to their capabilities, especially if you use them for something you earn money with.
Hi @udokr, I’m sure it won’t! Visualization will get much better in a few months.We are getting literally hundreds or even thousands of feature requests every month from our hundreds of thousands of users, and while we would love to satisfy all the requests as quickly as possible, delivering all the features takes time. But with our bi-weekly updates we are catching up rapidly. Thanks for bearing with us!
Well do I look forward to when I can livestream my Shapr3d model in AR with the upcomming Apple Headset
And also remote access a Mac studio or Pro server with only the Mixed Reality headset and a mouse and keyboard to run the Mac OS version of Shapr3d
But Visualisation in USDZ export will do until then. I hope to see that one soon;)
I’m finding Shapr3D and Cadmio go together like fine wine and a good cheese. Both are great by themselves, both taste even better when together. Cadmio solves the issue of giving me a fully realized model I can pass along to the client. And the option to specify direction of wood grain in Cadmio solves the problem a sub set of us here have in Shapr - if that gets resolved then great but if it means making Shapr more complicated and the interface more cluttered, why bother? Both companies will doubtless push each other to widen the finishes available and refine them. And both are priced well enough to have them side by side. A true dynamic duo I’m so happy to have.
Whilst I do agree that Cadmio and Shapr3D works great together, I don’t think Cadmio is keeping up with Shapr3D. And so, over time I think Cadmio will be increasingly less useful for Shapr3D users. Further, the interface of Shapr3D(especially the rendering interface) is in no danger of being “cluttered” any time soon. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I simply haven’t seen the same drive to improve from the Cadmio team
Still, not enough to match the realism I’m after (it’s not only about rotation, even rotating around existing axes and adding other “non-Cartesian-XYZ” axes to help see precisely how the wood is cut won’t suffice, as you’ve most certainly guessed. It’s insanely complex and it depends on a hundred parameters only if simplified), but I love your determination and your drive!
Keep it up!