Thank you, Gelphyn.
You are most welcome.
I also enjoyed the benefit of learning something new 
Hello everybody first of all.
This is my first post here.
I admit I donāt have a new and improved solution to the problem @ricko3k proposed.
Nevertheless, what I have to say is quite in topic, and I thought that it would have been more useful to post here instead than creating a new thread.
This topic, more in detail the alignment of objects (and also, I would add, the fact that they keep their alignment, even if I move the object they were initially aligned to), is something extremely critical.
In my own company we make an extensive use of 3D parametric CAD, mainly Catia, Inventor and NX, for aerospace purposal.
Iām more on the management and structural calculation side, although I have a good background on design.
Shapr3d at first sight looked to me as a real game changer. The fact is, Iām still convinced it might be.
So please do not read the following lines as a simple criticism, but something which would be more constructive instead, and improve somehow.
Iām not used to direct modeling, so I had to take some hours to feel comfortable on this new world.
I immediately appreciated the possibility and the powerfulness provided by the possibility to modify a solid in a fast and immediate way, without going back to the original sketch.
But after thatā¦ I immediately started looking for something that I honestly did not realizeā¦ I was not going to find.
I expected that Shapr was not thought to manage body assemblies (even if Iāve read somewhere, if Iām right, that this possibility may come in the future)
But on the other hand, I did not expect at all that there was no tool to apply even basic constraints (hole alignment, plane to plane, curve tu curve) to different bodies.
I still wonder if Iām losing some important part on the tutorials (in this case please accept my most sincere and deepest apologies and forget about this post), or if it is actually impossible to use this software to create complex parts without running the risk to waste a lot of time.
Please let me explain, because it is an important point and I donāt want to be considered a sort of Troll here.
I see a lot of complex 3D models here and on the web. Parts of engines, suspensions and so on.
Letās suppose that who designs those parts is using something like a mixed strategy. Maybe he is designing some parts here, then exporting them to the software he is running on the PC, integrating them into the assemblies, re-exporting the assembly with all the parts correctly positioned to Shapr and so onā¦
But unless you use shapr to create extremely simple parts, I wonder what happens if after some hours spent on a part, you realize that one of the basic quotes, that can affect everything, is wrong (or your client asks for a change).
This is the point: for companies like mine, Shapr3d would be a tool which could really help in heavily cutting down times and allow people to work much more freely.
But it misses something that makes it a wonderful ātoyā, actually unusable from a professional point of view, in my field of application (I repeat it once more).
I could for example, by myself, take a 3D model, change it, improve it without asking continuously the CAD departments for changes, and give it back to them once it is OK from the structural point of view.
Or on the other hand CAD guys could use it while they travel for work, whenever they want, to refine their models, improve them, sketch something new that can comes to their mind.
No, for whom is going to answer: āthis is exactly what it was meant for, and it actually works like thisā, the answer, Iām sorry, is āno, we canātā
I can accept the direct modeling approach as I said before and switch my mind to a different way of thinking and creating solids. Even more powerful on some aspects. But from my professional point of view, limited to my sector (which I understand is one os thousands, nonetheless full of competitors and with an important market share), I can not use a software that does not allow me to create constraints between solids; Iāve to be 100% be sure that everything is always in the right place or that If I need to change a couple of basic quotes then I donāt have to change some hundreds by hand. Or even to re-do everything.
I do not doubt that in some other cases it can be and make exactly what it looks like at first sight.
But still I wonder who exactly can use it in a professional way when it comes to face not the creative (initial) part or tradeoff of a process, but the final feasibility and manufacturing one.
This is not a strong criticism after all: I mean, I really do hope that some improvement and change can be made in the future and features be added. After all everyone would be happy for that: both developers and customers.
Best regards and have a good day everyone
Alessandro
1 Like
Hi Alessandro,
Thanks for the detailed feedback. Just to be sure that I understand: you miss
- feature history
- assemblies
Right?
Hi,
What a fast feedback!
Yes youāre right, with some differences within.
I understand that in a direct modeling software the feature history that Iām used to find in a parametric one can not be present. It is a principle the software itself is based on. A philosophy.
But this is not a real big issue. It is just a matter of understanding how you need to build your complex solid and get used to it.
On the other hand, the problem comes when, once Iāve built my complex solid, I need to modify it for whatever reason.
Think about the electrical engine that is in your tutorials. Or about the car wheel. What if once Iāve created the pockets and finished the solid, the external diameter changes?
I saw on instagram that youāre setting up a tutorial on a bike frame. What if once Iāve completed the frame solid, built around the constrained sketch, one of the critical quotes changes?
In a parametric CAD, it is a matter of minutes changing the sketch, solving the possible conflicts appearing and then getting the updated solid. But even fighting with conflicts, which I know can be frustrating, is less time consuming that building
up all, from the start.
If at least, constraints could be used between solids (bodies) then I might split my complex solid in a certain number of simple solids, connected by constraints.
Again, this would not be a workaround, but simply a different way of obtaining the same result.
And yes, finally, I can not think of a better final refinement than having the possibility to create and manage assemblies.
I saw people in the forum doing crazy things like creating screws as solids instead than importing pre-existing bodies (built as per standards, taken from libraries) and simply place them in the right spot.
I honestly think that youāre on the right path and the software is powerful, beautiful, smooth.
It makes me wonder about a totally different approach to CAD.
It will never be the only CAD a company like mine can use. Whichever is the power of this and next gen iPadPro, it will never stand a high level nVidia Quadro card.
But it might be the solution to increase creativity, make people more indipendent and also let them work in a more relaxed way/environment.
This can be achieved only passing through constraints between bodies, and assembly management.
Obviously speaking about my sector.
Kind regards and once again thank you for your contact
Alessandro
1 Like
Well, yes, in theory. Unfortunately paramatric models always break when you try to do an unexpected change, or often you canāt even do it. The underlying logic is just burned into the model, and everything that goes against it, will break the model, and itās often easier to redo everything from scratch than trying to figure out how the features are connected.
That being said, I donāt think that direct modeling is perfect by any means. There is a lot of room for improvement, even in our current implementation. I am also not saying that parametric modeling is bad. Itās just that the way how it is implemented in legacy CAD systems reminds me more to a horrible programming language, thatās impossible to debug. I can imagine a much better implementation for parametric modeling for sure. 
Hi Alessandro,
I read your post with interest.
For my day job I design test benches for the aerospace sector so am somewhat familiar with āpro cadā. For me there is no argument, direct modeling is the only way to go. Itās the difference between getting on and creating something or issuing commands to a cad app.
Iāve been āplayingā with shapr for sometime. It really is maturing into a great modeling app and the people behind it are both genuine and very serious about what theyāre creating. However, from a professional view itās not a lot of use at this stage.
The most critical thing missing is assembly. The idea of modeling every component in the final position is absurd. At least 80% of all components in any design are off the shelf items and virtually every manufacturer now has excellent online models. If not the manufacturer then sites such as traceparts. I have better things to do than model 50 or 60 Swagelok fittings!
A couple of simple tools, align face/plane, align axis with the ability to float/lock would be an excellent start.
The second is user input data capture. I need to be able to select a component and find out what it is, whatās the sku, supplier etc, etc, etc ā¦ Generating parts lists is a basic starting point for any manufacture.
A side issue here, it would be great if all the cad vendors could play nice and create a format for transferring this data between apps.
A user generated parts library would also be very useful for those oft used components.
Then of course we get into the ādream listā. These are things like sheet metal tools, tube routing, wiring harness tools, Industrial level 2d drawing creation ā¦
Rather than having everything in the one app I would like to see some of these latter tools āspun offā into modules so each user can choose these specialists as they need them. Perhaps as subscriptions. This would help in keeping the base modeling app more affordable while having powerful tools available for those that can benefit from them.
I would much prefer to see these tools introduced first before photo rendering and such like.
Kim
5 Likes
Hi Kal, there you go!
For the way some sectors work, it is not feasible at this stage to let shapr3d become part of the process.
COTS are a critical part. There are some companies like maytec or similar which not only make 3D models available, but also created their own CAD systems to help you create a sub-assembly made of their parts, and then import it at once.
Some not so big assemblies easily reach hundreds of off the shelf partsā¦
Nonethelss, Iām as convinced as you about both the good things Iāve seen so far and the genuinity of the peole behind it.
I fully agree!
I had a look at the app with the CAD guys working here.
They were really enthusiasts at first sight. Even (only) the simple fact of using the pencil on the screen having the other hand free to quickly access commands was something that they immediately appreciated.
Bu then the critical point always came: okā¦ forgetting about the parametric world is possibile, but how is it possible that on such a smart tool there are no direct commands for alignment?
It is something invonceivable to them and I honestly had to agreeā¦
Honestly speaking, in my experience this strongly depends on who and how built the model.
If the model has been setup and built with a strong rationale behind, by someone ho has an in-depth knowledge of the software and its tricks, for sure youāre going to have to face conflicts (it is a standard and important part of the review process in the parametric CAD, we have to state it out), but youāre not going to rebuild from scratch.
1 Like
Yes, I agree.
I agree with both Alessandro and Kim. In a nutshell, itās a great concept tool, but not ātightā or robustly accurate enough to 100% trust to fire off to the Cad/Cam system. 3d printing and exploring new concepts/designs for feasiblity, YES.
Why do you think itās not accurate?
I suppose it could be me. Sometimes I find things have very slightly moved, in position or width or length. I may have accidently touched other objects when performing am operation.
Interesting, thanks, great feedback.
We are 3D printing eyewear as end-user products, not concepts. I have just made a frame with Shapr3D and will print one to test.
The metal hinge that has to be mounted is minimalistic and a tolerance of 0.1mm is involved.
Will find out if things are accurate soon.
Ah yes. Thatās brilliant. Iām sure it will work. Good luck.
Hello everyone,
I have been reading few posts on aligning objects and it seems this one is the best at posing the problem. Like most of you I use Shapr3D in addition of conventional CAD software as the assemblies remain difficult.
Are they any plans to release a version with basic body alignment ?
thank you
Yes, alignment is already in the design/implementation phase. Assemblies are coming later.
3 Likes
Fantastic, I canāt wait to try it.
Thanks for the very quick response.
2 Likes
Always happy to talk about the product! 
we are going crazy fast with product development, new versions cominh out every two weeks or so. Stay tuned!
1 Like