“Quick” duplicate (copy) in place no longer working

Need help? We are here.
1

Shaper team,
Can we get back the (little known but very useful) copy in place shortcut?
This allowed us to create a duplicate copy of bodies(s) without having to move the copy, deselect the copy badge, then move the duplicate back to its origin.
Instead, before you could just select the copy badge, touch any linear arrow to bring up the number pad, select the green check mark and DONE!
At some point over the last month, the quick option stopped working.
Because Shapr3D lacks a dedicated duplicate in place function, this was a handy time saver that also decreased the chances of user error in returning the duplicate to the origin (especially if, while using the “long” process the user had dragged the linear arrow (and not noted how far it was moved) instead of typing in a specific offset to initiate the copy).
The shortcut became EXPONENTIALLY more of a time saver when duplicating in place large (thousands of bodies) assemblies (my use case). The “calculating” time for the extra move back essentially DOUBLES the total time to complete the duplicate.
Can we please, please, please have this shortcut back…or even better…a duplicate option in the items menu and/or a toggle on the copy badge?

Thanks for all you do!

6 Likes
2

+1 for this. I was unpleasantly surprised to notice this missing today too.

I can’t imagine that a duplicate in place button hasn’t been asked for before.

2 Likes
3

Hey – thanks for reporting this. We indeed removed this function, though not fully intentionally, during some under-the-hood work we’ve been doing. We’ll see if it makes sense or possible to re-add it, but a dedicated duplicate tool is also something that we’ve been considering adding.

But at the same time, could you explain what’s your use case for this? What’s the next step you do with the copies that now you have in the same place as the originals?

2 Likes
4

Hi Peter,

I’m sure the OP will answer but thought I would as well. I’m constantly pasting in place for a few different reasons:

  1. Version control - I use the folder system for version control as I’m working on single piece items. I’ll paste in place, hide the first one and continue forward using that like a save point I can go back to.

  2. Boolean operations - some complicated booleans require me to have a couple of the same parts to do one operation and then switch back to the original and do another operation. So I’ll paste in place, hide one like above and repeat.

  3. Testing parts - I might have a few versions of the same part but with varying thicknesses (for example). I can then quickly switch between them to see which I prefer.

  4. Fillets - similar to number 1, fillets can be quite destructive so I often save a second part that remain unfilleted on the off chance that I can’t delete them later (which happens quite often with parts that have lots of fillets, especially those that overlap)

IMG_1321
IMG_1321600×871 78.2 KB

6 Likes
5

Peter, thanks for the reply.
I think Shaun gave some excellent examples of when a user would want (need) to duplicate in place.

#1 Version control and #3 testing are two examples that coincide somewhat with my current workflow….but the scale/complexity is probably different.

I work mostly in developing, placing, and modifying machinery in production lines, as well as general layout, flow, etc in our processing plants. In essence I help in the everything from the design of individual components, to the final placement of whole assemblies within an (usually already existing) building.

My primary use of duplicate in place is for generating multiple concurrent, slightly different versions of a machine or layout, for design review. Alternate versions in separate folders allows me to have one touch “layer” control of the view while I am developing my proposed layouts and presenting them for design review.

During my design process I go through MANY possible solutions that may be based on/duplicates of an initial body or assembly. Usually, it is important for the new version to start with exactly the same placement (have the same orientation, centerline, etc) as the other possibilities. Then parts of the new copy are modified to test fit and flow within the larger machine or building. This may continue as tweaks/modifications are requested to new versions, etc, etc.

Ultimately two or three alternatives usually show to be promising, as well as a version of the “original”/existing layout, and incompatible designs are discarded.

As you can see, duplicate in place is a CENTRAL piece to my design and design review workflow. Because I work with multiple versions as layers, I am sometimes duplicating production lines with THOUSANDS of bodies. Most of which will not move in the new version (but need to be there anyway in the new folder). At that complexity, the time it takes to calculate the “move” twice (over a bit, then back to the origin) causes further frustration that may not be as apparent when duplicating a single body.

I am sure there are more workflows that have been affected or could be made less disruptive/quicker (a stated goal of Shapr3D) with a duplicate funcion.

I would hope that Shapr will duly consider the effect of taking away an existing function (even inadvertently) whose loss disrupts existing paid user workflows, and prioritize its replacement.

The eventual addition of a “duplicate” function is of course needed (from the items menu also hopefully), but I hope this current copy in place shortcut we had does not get shelved in the meantime. As we know, “on the roadmap” sometimes takes a long time.
I will be very disappointed if it takes 6-12 months or more to get back a functionality I had until weeks ago.

Thank you for your consideration!

3 Likes
6

Thank you both for the detailed explanation. While we are planning or are in the middle of developing alternative workflows for the use cases you described, a 0-sized copy-move or a dedicated duplicate tool can indeed be a simple & effective solution for this. We’ll look into this – I’ll get back to you.

2 Likes
7

Thanks Peter. It sounds like we have properly helped to show there are many reasons for a copy in place (I can think of many more outside my current workflow), and why it is a big deal for us that it was removed.

We will cool our heels and let you do your thing. We are counting on you! (No pressure :wink:). Keep us updated please.

Thanks also for some insight on your future development that you feel may improve our current workflows (without needing a duplicate in place function necessarily). Sounds intriguing. Let me know if you need any additional information.
Take care.

8

If I can jump in with a workaround for now, though you can’t make a 0 distance move, you can turn on copy and rotate the body with 360 degrees, which creates a copy in place. I hope it helps until we have a different solution.

7 Likes
9

Thanks Laci, I will give that a try. Sounds better than moving 5,000 bodies over an inch, then back an inch.
We’ll see how the iPad like it LOL.

1 Like
10

Thanks Laci :+1:

11

I’m in the same boat where a duplicate/ copy & paste in place feature would be incredibly useful for how I am currently using the software on my more complicated bodies. Generally, I am doing so to tweak an object, without deforming the previous so I can flip back and forth between them (using the hide/unhide option) to quickly compare my design choices.

Easiest work around is tapping the move arrow, setting a +10 unit movement, then going back and doing a -10 unit movement. Tedious when I would rather just hit duplicate and have it does so in place :slight_smile: especially when I do so a lot within the app. Doing so on my iPad Pro, so the process feels even more cumbersome here than I imagine it feels on desktop.

2 Likes
12

Someone recently posted a quicker way to do it. Instead of moving the copy, they just rotated it 360 degrees.

1 Like
13

Version control is a big one for me. I wonder if the upcoming parametric modeling history will solve this for many of us?

1 Like
14

I’ve also found Duplicate to be necessary in many workflows. For example, there’s no equivalent to Split Body along a curved surface (e.g. separate the handle from a teapot), but you can 1) duplicate the body, 2) delete all faces projecting from the curved surface from the copy, and 3) subtract the copy from the original. For another example, it’s useful when creating tolerances for threads: duplicate the male thread, scale up the duplicate a few percent, then subtract the scaled duplicate from the other body to create the female thread with clearance.

Duplicate is a crucial primitive that needs to be supported in the library of boolean operations. Not an obscure edge-case or hidden trick.

However, I don’t think a dedicated Duplicate tool is needed. An item in the context menu (along with Zoom To, Rename, Isolate, etc.) would be good enough.

2 Likes
15

Ditto
For me too

16

Hi @Peter_Gy any updated info on adding a duplicate function, or at least returning the “0” move copy option? (Yes, I have been using Laci’s 360 degree copy alternative in the meantime…but it just feels like, well…a workaround instead of a proper long term solution :man_shrugging:)

Your last communication was before the Parametric drop, and you had hinted to upcoming features to address some of the use cases we described.
Is there any more you can tell us now, or examples of the upcoming Parametric additions helping replace the duplicate need?
I haven’t been invited into the Beta yet, so I haven’t been able to try it firsthand.
Thanks in advance for any update!

17

Hey – no tangible update yet, I’m afraid. After investigating it we decided that we wouldn’t want to re-add the ability of a 0-length move as it’d cause many problems under the hood (it actually did, that’s why we “fixed” it during some stabilization work). A Duplicate tool is on the backlog but it’s not yet in the parametric beta.

But I believe a parametric workflow already helps a lot with many of these issues, even without a duplicate tool:

  • it offers a form of version control, allowing you to go back to previous states and make modifications
  • you can create copies that live together if you make adjustment to the core features before the copy, allowing you to see the different versions at the same time (without having to make edits to each)
  • fillets (and other operations that are sort-of “create-only” in direct modeling like shells or booleans become a lot easier to edit, so there’s no need to save backup bodies

We’ll open up the parametric beta to everyone very soon, but if you can’t wait, just send me the email address you use for Shapr3D in private and I’ll add you to this week’s invites :slight_smile:

18

Hi Peter,

I would love to have the parametric beta. Could you please add me to this week’s list?

Regards.

19

I think regardless of this, a duplicate tool should be quite simple to implement. There are lots of scenarios where a simple tool vs more complex parametric tools is the better solution.

Think about all the beginners using this software and how many will be confused about having no duplicate or copy option.

20

I’m just beginning to use shapr3d and I was wondering why I couldn’t just duplicate! Luckily I found this discourse fairly quickly.