Shapr3D is losing its unique value: direct, iterative prototyping

Feature requests
1

Hi Shapr3D team,

I’m posting this because the shift towards History/parametric behavior has actively broken the exact reason I chose Shapr3D in the first place. I’m not a CAD engineer. I’m a maker/prototyper. Shapr3D used to be the perfect tool for that: precise, fast, direct, and intuitive.

My workflow is iterative prototyping, not “design intent CAD”

I don’t create one perfect object in a clean parametric chain. I work like this:

  • Build an object (Prototype A)

  • Duplicate it (Prototype B)

  • Modify B until it works

  • Keep A unchanged as a reference

  • Delete what I don’t need

  • Repeat with C/D/E

This is normal for makers and product prototyping.

History-based behavior breaks this workflow

With History/parametric behavior enabled (or leaking into the workflow), I get issues like:

  • I delete an object and something else breaks unexpectedly

  • I remove a sketch/profile and entire bodies or other geometry disappear

  • I can’t reliably delete items anymore without fear of side effects

  • “Hide instead of delete” is not a real solution; it creates clutter and makes files harder to manage

When I have five prototypes on the same workspace, they must behave like five independent objects, not like five parts of a dependency network.

I need the ability to:

  • delete 2 prototypes without the other 3 changing

  • edit prototype B without prototype A collapsing

  • iterate freely without “domino effects”

That direct, local, predictable behavior is exactly what made Shapr3D feel superior to Fusion or other CAD-based workflow programs for me.

Shapr3D is giving up its unique advantage

CAD professionals already have endless options like Fusion, SolidWorks, Inventor, Onshape, Rhino, etc. They don’t need Shapr3D unless it becomes a full-blown competitor, and that’s a huge uphill battle. Shapr3D used to own something unique: direct modeling with precision + an insanely fast prototyping workflow.

That’s rare. That’s valuable. And it’s what made me choose Shapr3D over Fusion/Blender.

Right now it feels like Shapr3D is trying to attract pro CAD users by adding history, while pushing away the maker/prototyper users who loved it specifically because it wasn’t “CAD bureaucracy.”

What I’m asking for

Please make this a real choice, not a forced direction.

  1. A true “Direct Modeling Mode” (project-level setting)

    • no dependencies between sketches and bodies unless explicitly created

    • deleting geometry is local and safe

    • sketches can be disposable without threatening the model

  2. Delete should be obvious and reliable again

    • deleting an object should delete only that object

    • no hidden side effects

  3. If history exists, keep it contained to history projects

    • don’t force “hide sketches forever” as standard workflow

    • don’t let parametric behavior spill into direct prototyping

Shapr3D became popular because it allowed people to build things quickly without requiring CAD ideology. Please don’t remove that identity. Thanks for listening. I’m posting this because I genuinely want to stay with Shapr3D, but the current direction makes my workflow harder, slower, and unpredictable.

2

You can merge the history, and then you’ll get the direct modeling behavior that you are missing. You can also create unlinked copies of objects, which will do what you’ve described.

3

Have you read my post? That’s not a solution, it’s extra overhead. Direct modeling should be a mode, not something I have to ‘merge history’ to recover after the fact. If unlinked copies exist, make it the default for duplicate, or at least a prominent toggle. Users shouldn’t have to know about dependency graphs to prototype.

Also: hiding sketches isn’t project hygiene. Deleting should be safe and local in Direct Mode. You’re asking hobbyists to learn CAD concepts to restore the behavior that used to be the default. What even is the point of changing Shapr to be this weird ‘CAD-light’ software when there’s far more and far better software out there that’s been used as an industry standard for years? Why are you so insistent on destroying the one feature that made Shapr unique for hobbyists?