I have one unioned body in my design that is highlighted in red. I assume that there is some issue with that he body. What does it mean? There is absolutely zero information given. Am I missing something?
1 Like
I’ve got loads and they’re mostly from imported bodies. No clue as to what the problems are but they behave weirdly when copying them.
A forum search netted me this (search terms: red text): Why are some objects in red text all of a sudden?
Unfortunately, the response given in that thread still doesn’t explain what it means past it being a fillet issue. Mine is on an imported part. There’s no way to do anything with it within the history. What are the ramifications? Can I ignore it? Does it interfere with the rest of the model? Sorry, the response they (Shapr) gave just doesn’t pass muster.
Yes, you can ignore it. Will be fixed with the next release.
Thanks for the prompt reply. I’m still trying to get used to this new update….begrudgingly.
I suspect your thousands of users were those that pined for parametric modeling. Of course they’re not going to complain. I didn’t use the beta because I assumed there would be a blending in period to get used to the change before complete implementation as you yourself wrote there would be. I understand completely that the program basically acts the same way it did before, however, some of those “minor” changes are pretty deep into some folks’ modeling process. You’ve thrown some people way off their game and they’re rightfully pissed about it. I’m sticking with you guys because I love using this program. Please don’t disappoint me.
3 Likes
Can you give a few specific examples of what you find hard to adapt to?
I can. The issue of the xyz gizmo no longer being able to be repositioned without clicking off and completely reselecting the bodies to move the bodies. Previously, after altering a body’s position, you could move the gizmo to a plane to allow movement along that plane. If you try that now, it just resets the body to its original position. The copy/move issue is annoying only because it took me almost a year of conscious thought to use it without problems only to have it changed. Those are the top two for me. Listen, I really appreciate what you guys are doing and know you are living in a crap catching hurricane right now.
1 Like
Makes sense, we’ll look into it. No hurricane, we are used this. Every single time we release something, there is a lot of people who complain. That’s fine, our job is to maximize customer satisfaction. We can never get to 100% but we can always do better. Eg. when we released Visualization, for months we had a lot of community members complaining about why we spent so much time on it - despite it’s one of the most used features in Shapr3D. This was a big release with many changes, we’ll need to fix a few bugs and revisit some of the decisions that we made.
1 Like
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. I don’t complain to disparage. It’s feedback to help. I have to say Shapr has thrown some of what made it elegant to work with out for the old pros who want it to be more like the other cad programs… the elegance/ difference was the reason many are here in the first place 
Can you be more specifc? If you close the history panel, Shapr3D basically works like it used to work. Why do you feel that it’s less elegant?
Thanks much. I appreciate you listening.
Sometimes It’s the little things like sacrificing the way copy worked to make way for the array. The array is great but clunky for little, simpler operations. I don’t get why copy had to change to make way for the array.
Sketches. I used to lay several bodies on one sketch to make my assembly.
This has been one of my huge gripes with the update. It’s like an error, with no indication what the error actually is. I’ve also found it with mostly imported models which makes sharing with users of other programs difficult, most common file sharing format for 3d is step files, and most (if not all of my imported ones are red now).
@Istvan i think what @Oregonerd is trying to say by elegance was the simplicity of the old version of Shapr compared to the more high end CAD programs. A few basic tutorials, and some self learning of the ins and outs and beginners could get a grasp of it very easily and start being creative. That compared to things like solid works and fusion that are so feature packed and geared more towards formally educated engineers that a beginner would need to take courses to learn how to use it. That’s kind of how older users of shapr (at least me) are feeling now.
EDIT: and hell I have a formal eduction and decades of experience with SW and chose to have Shapr instead because of the simplicity and functionality on iPad OS vs needing to buy a PC just to run SW hahaha
I believe certain features would have been much more useful than the latest update, some probably easier to implement as well. I have brought those up in other threads on the update as well as in the feature requests.
1 Like
That can be improved easily, and not related to parametric modeling.
What prevents you doing it now?
I can also speak to this. If you have multiple parts in one sketch and they overlap because the relationships are used for the assembly (very useful for knowing dimensions are matching). I used to be able to use the make construction feature in sketching to only define the parts i needed at the time for extrusion. Then change that part to make construction, make the sketch portion for the other part make normal and extrude that. Now If you do that it alters the first part to reflect the make construction. Having to have the entire sketch defined as normal means individually selecting a ton of small overlapped sections.
The complexity only goes up with the more parts in the assembly.
1 Like
That’s why we’d like to understand what are the specific issues. We need actionable feedback. I’m not worried about new users, we did a lot of testing, and we have data from tens if thousands of users that the new version performs just as good or better for new users as the old version (parametric has been out for new users for months). However we understand that existing users might find even minor changes frustrating, but we need to know what those exactly are. During the beta testing period we fixed many of these, we can fix more. I’m pretty sure that hiding skeches instead of deleting them is not making Shapr3D more complex or less elegant. I understand that some other changes can be frustrating, that’s why we are trying to collect those and fix them.
Here is a video of Shapr3D from 2015. One of the first public versions. People loved it. It was even easier to use. Even more elegant. Dramatically more simple and minimalistic. I’m pretty sure that you’d not use it. Products evolve, and we’ll always try to provide the best experience possible. Sometimes it takes a couple of iterations to maximize customer satisfaction.
3 Likes
I see. This will be solved by the upcoming collapse history feature.