I’m just trying to move the little extrusion a little further from the edge. You can see the sketch moved from its original location.
I don’t understand why are there even constraints in this program if they are just ignored. I can’t tell if the software is broken or I am broken and I’m about to give up.
If you’re simply moving the double cylinder then select all related surfaces and use Move-Rotate like I did below. The circle sketches have no relation to the extruded body. Constraints only apply to sketches.
Very helpful kind sir, I now understand how to move it. 
BUT I still don’t understand WHY you do it that way. I’m still as confused as before. Do I have to move both the sketch and extrusion every time, that seems logically, inescapably, purely, wrong. Is it that in this program after you extrude a sketch, that sketch is just leftover material you can delete? Kind of like a temporary jig…
Hi,
Shapr3D is a direct modelling software, which means once the 3D body is created, there is no relation between it, and the 2D sketch. Therefore in most cases, there is no need to move both of them, the 3D bodies can be directly changed.
A related article from our support page:
I have seen the light and starting to become more familiar with shapr3d and bought it. 
Something funny is that I have been using fusion 360 for years but when I began searching for CAD software I did not think of the difference between direct and parametric. To me, parametric was a feature that other software was missing. It was not a paradigm to me at all, it was the stand out feature, which to me made fusion 360 vastly superior. So its omission from shapr3d is a huge loss for me.
With the fusion 360 no launching apple silicon support after years, and certainly the cloud service going down it has really broken my trust to the point where I searched and found shapr3d which has none of the parametric features that drew me in to fusion 360.
To me it seems the direct modeling could maybe be better at iterating designs, but parametric is unreasonably effective at iterating dimensions, which is more common to me. For me I usually knock out the rough design and add constraints and then I go back and fix the dimensions. That makes the workflow semantic. It is not just a dumb lifeless mesh of triangles but rather each shape carries within it my intentions. It’s like direct modeling is to pixel art what parametric is to vector graphics. So yeah, I think that fusion 360 is superior but shapr3d is no slouch, which means overall its a better package and I will continue my (probably months long) migration to it.
Certainly both approaches have benefits and drawbacks. Direct modeling can be a bit mind bending for those who are used to parametric modeling, but after a little bit of practicing it becomes very powerful. It’s not flawless of course, but parametric modeling also has its peculiarities, just think of debugging lost references after modificaitons in the feature tree, unexpected changes due to poorly defined dependencies between features, etc.
I agree, especially because “parametric” is thoroughly unforgiving, as it requires you to think abstractly (constraints and parameters) rather than looking at a lump of clay to be pushed and pulled. And although I have been able to accomplish my goals in shapr3d, I wont stop thinking in terms of constraints and parameters any time soon 
Thanks to your help I have completed my first project using shapr3d:
Yes, common wisdom is that direct modeling is better suited for conceptual design, while parametric is better for detailed engineering. I think there is some truth in that, but I an experienced designer can use both approaches for both use cases (although they might have preferences).
