So I just had reason to use the polygon tool to create a hex. It’s for a part that will use an Allen key. Well, like the circle tool, the only method of defining the size of the polygon does not coincide with how things are defined in the real world. An Allen hex is defined by the distance between the flats. The tool I. Shapr3D uses the radius on the points. I did some searching and could not find and source for standard Allen key sizes that give that dimension or even the diameter of the points. I had to resort to measuring one with my digital calipers.
So I ask can you add the ability to define polygons by the flats please? And can you give more consideration to how stuff is defined the real world. There is usually more than one way depending on whet it is and what you are working from.
Yes, this is true. I find the same thing. I also find the arc tool less than useful nearly all of the time, and usually use circles then trim the unwanted bits away.
In the meanwhile, one alternative for this particular problem could be creating a hexagon with a rough size, lock its centerpoint (or any other part of it according to your needs) and add a distance constraint with the Allen hex size:
I’m more accustomed to describing an ark by center and radius, or two points and center- in other programs I have other options too, but describing an arc in shapr3d requires me to accept the start angle I’ve drawn with the pencil, with no real control of the center, radius, or sweep. I’ve given up on it for most things. Maybe I’m doing it wrong?
That is a helpful workaround. But it seems that almost everything about Shapr3D requires workarounds. More steps is not better, no matter how “fast” Shapr3D is. My biggest gripe with Shapr3D has been that there is usually only one way to define something in a too an that way is usually the least useful way. Even for basic things like circles/holes. Diameter is the most common and useful way to define a circle, yet it took 3 years for you to finally bend and add the option. And it’s not the default as it should be. I’d love to see time given to take all the feedback like this and implement it instead of adding more, new, features.
Is this still outstanding I cannot see how to use the hexagon tool with measurement across the flats as used in the real world. I can use the work around but it would be better if you could select either option.