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.

1 Like
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?

1 Like
4

I agree that the extra steps to do what took one step prior to history is the core of the issue.

There should be a setting that has 3 options to set the default behavior when deleting a sketch:

  1. Show and warn about dependencies providing the action in 2,3 below (default)
  2. Detach all dependencies from sketch and delete sketch (what most direct modelers want)
  3. Delete sketch and all dependencies (worst default b/c it can delete stuff that isn’t obvious)

With option 1 set, a sketch with no dependencies would simply be deleted. A sketch with dependencies would show the dependencies and ask if you want to do 2 or 3. This is the option that I would use.

Option 2 is what direct modelers want as it is the behavior prior to the introduction of history.

Option 3 is the current behavior and I doubt it’s what anyone wants.

Another option to always create unlinked copies when creating from a sketch and when copying objects. However, I think creating linked copies from objects requires manipulating the history to see any real effects. It’s the initial dependency of on object to a sketch that is making it difficult for direct modelers.

5

That’s what you can do after merging the history with a single click. It even offers you to delete all the sketches. I understand that this additional click can be frustrating, but it’s also frustrating when you are not able to change the radius of a fillet, or a thickness of a shell, the shape of a loft or sweep due to the limitations of direct modeling, and you have to rebuild your model from scratch. It indeed comes at the cost of some minor inconvenience, and learning a slightly different workflow, but we are confident that overall the benefits are worth it.

It’s right next to the “Copy” button.

Every tool has its ways of working and I understand that changes in a workflow can be frustrating initially.

3 Likes
6

Ivstvan, unlink copy at the point of copy is a workaround for direct modelers. So is merge history. It’s an extra step which is incredibly annoying if that’s what you always want to do. Personally I want the history but I think there are better ways to provide a combination of default behavior and “global” options for users that want it that way.

Can you respond to my previous post? Having option 1 is really important as it will at least prevent users from accidentally deleting dependent objects when deleting a sketch. I suppose the same is true when editing a sketch. Users should be optionally be warned of objects that will change if they change part of a sketch.

1 Like
7

We don’t plan to implement a “direct modeling mode” in Shapr3D.

1 Like
8

We don’t plan to implement a “direct modeling mode” in Shapr3D.

That’s not what I was suggesting. What I’m suggesting is below and it’s to help reduce confusion and allow the user to choose the behavior that they want.

There should be a setting that has 3 options to set the default behavior when deleting a sketch:

  1. Show and warn about dependencies providing the action in 2,3 below (default)

  2. Detach all dependencies from sketch and delete sketch (what most direct modelers want)

  3. Delete sketch and all dependencies (worst default b/c it can delete stuff that isn’t obvious)

1 Like
9

2 and 3 are both already possible by merging the history, and doing that automatically would be equal to implementing the direct modeling mode. Doing this would go well beyond just “automatically pressing the button” after every operation, it would have massive UX, UI and development costs.

10

Detaching all dependencies from a sketch and delete the sketch (option 2) is only possibly by doing this to ALL sketches using merge all history or merge from a breakpoint forward. This is too much.

Certainly you have access to a sketch’s dependencies. Why can’t you walk that list of items, make unlinked copies of those and then delete the originals and the sketch (one sketch not all of them).

Deleting a sketch and all dependencies (option 3) is what happens currently without warning and is what causes users to believe something weird is going on. If we could at least see the consequence of deleting the sketch (the warning mentioned in option 1), then we could at least walk the list ourselves to correct the problems before deleting the sketch.

After testing a bit, I do see that we can at least suppress a sketch in history to simulate what would happen if we deleted it. Then the dependents are marked with the “!” red triangle. This helps in simple cases but in complex cases with a lot of items and potentially a lot of unrelated issues in history, it would be better to see the sketch and its related items when selected just like you see an items related items when selected.

In any event, I’m not a “direct modeler”. I’m definitely on the parametric/history side. However, there are a lot of complaints from users who are direct modelers and enjoyed using Shapr3d prior to the history change. Anything that could be done to help both types of users would be great.

1 Like
11

My advice, based on quite a few years of using Shapr3D (pretty much from the beginning) and on my experience here on the forum: don’t even bother posting anything here, especially any kind or form of criticism or displeasure. It’s not worth the time at all, because it will never change anything anyway.

And for the record: I’m also — like many others — extremely frustrated by the direction S3D is moving in, especially the changes related to parametric workflows. But also by the intense pressure they’re applying to force even the last soul to use their cloud solution (which I refuse).

5 Likes
12

I could not agree more.

1 Like
13

I agree totally with your POV. To me this software gets more bloated at every version. With no clear vision where my project files are.

History system is not easy to apprehend for the regular hobby user, and I reckon that I’ve lost hours with history wrong options chosen

Please dev team, keep it simple or fork your project towards a pro and hobbyist version available.