I open shapr3D, login with browser and browser sends me back to Shapr3D,where nothing happens. After 1s I get option to again login via browser.
It is similar as on this page:
Above is some solution for WLAN, which I am not using.
No problem to login with VPN turned OFF.
Also no problem to login with VPN ON or OFF with regular shapr3D on same computer.
Thanks!
A few more questions:
Are all traffic goes through the VPN or just the specific IP ranges?
Are there any http proxies configured system wide or for the browser?
Today the problem is gone.
Not sure why.
Shapr3D beta and Shapr3D are now behaving the same and I have no problem logging in with VPN.
VPN is always set to tunnel only browser traffic.
Hi tried quickly just now and its super cool. I could download the beta version on my work desktop, but could not on my home laptop. Is it possible to get it on my windows 10 home laptop also?. Do most of my design in the laptop.
Hi,
You should be able to install it on the laptop too, as long as you are logged in to the Microsoft store with the same account as you used for the Visualization Beta.
Hi Laci
Ok can I change my account email from work to a personal email?
Thanks alot. Will do
Rudi Geyser
+264817563640
Merlus Management (Pty) Ltd.
Ben Amathila Avenue
Box 1996
Walvis Bay
Tel +264 64 2731110
Fax +264 64 2731101
Hi Laci
I messeged Seb now.
Do you have Shapr3D forums on an app on Iphone aswel. ?
Rudi Geyser
+264817563640
Merlus Management (Pty) Ltd.
Ben Amathila Avenue
Box 1996
Walvis Bay
Tel +264 64 2731110
Fax +264 64 2731101
The forum is fully web, it can be accessed from any platform.
Morning Laci
I did pm Seb. But no response. I would realy like to try and test the Windows Visualisation beta today?
Is there a way you can help. My email at home for windows store is geyserrudi@outlook.com and my Shapr 3d Account email is ruddag@gmail.com. Please if possible help. Thanks
Rudi Geyser
+264817563640
Merlus Management (Pty) Ltd.
Ben Amathila Avenue
Box 1996
Walvis Bay
Tel +264 64 2731110
Fax +264 64 2731101
Sorry, I don’t have access to that database, will have to wait.
Hey there!
I’m joining the conversation quite late without a ton of stuff to discuss and review, but here it is:
The right sphere is only bigger than the left one. No other modifications were made.
Presets: they are usable in most common setups, look and feel great, a breeze under the cursor or the tip of the pencil, but in some cases, they are much too generic. They are… “cold”. I often skip the environment presets and use defaults. Shapr3D is a superb tool and it’s the long awaited “bridge” from drawing to production I’ve been waiting for, so I am not asking for complexity. More flexibility would do.
Now regarding the materials themselves: there are 80 of them, they cover most needs, but as a farmer gone luthier (all while being developer and percussionist, ouch), doing only custom work with custom finishes and uncommon woods, I often need to tweak and superimpose textures because most woods (and even A-grade aluminum used for mech parts when it’s custom-colored, i.e. colored as it’s made, not painted) are unavailable as materials, or never look realistic enough. You guessed it: thickness, opacity, translucence, self-emitting and so on are missing. Another thing is missing too: a simple way to swap and discard materials. So far we only have “change” as an option, which is good for perfectionists and other customization freaks… but we haven’t got any “remove material” as a simple option to revert to zero, and we can’t drag a texture from a part to put it on the other while the opposite happens. The material list also needs some improvement in its layout (strictly GUI HStack and VStack issues, but no biggie).
I’ll be back with more after I’ll have spent more time trying out everything in-depth. Looking forward to creative discussions!
Thanks for reading so far. My English seriously suffers from jet lag, I hope you don’t mind if I leave now.
Really excited to test this. Any chance I could jump in on the beta please.
Hi,
The beta test has ended, but the feature will soon be available in the live app 
Time to celebrate, then!
Awesome job so far. I know it’s only a beginning and I’m curious to see it evolve (if you’ve still got some time, I’d like to share a few more ideas with you. Too bad I came late in the beta)!
Huge-as-hell thanks for Visualization. Now a choice can be made between a quick and easy presentation, and a femtometer-precise ray traced render taking days.
I mean, once upon a time 
we had to use clunky-clumsy-squeaky tools for very different needs. Now, it’s “each need its tool”. Such a relief!
Clients love it a lot, from what I experienced.
Some even tried their hand at dragging and dropping materials, and it worked wonders even though they had zero prior experience.
Heh. Look at me all giggly.
Thank you guys. Superb teamwork.
Sure, keep the ideas coming
It can be quite overwhelming since it has to do with the nature of light. I already told Seb about my “light as a natural phenomenon and its physical manifestation not being taken into account by CAD software”, haha!
I’m thinking about a way to bring out the “real” stuff out, so it’s impossible to tell between GPU-generated light and natural phenomenon.
Quite a futile quest, perhaps?
I’m not sure about it. Some talk could help figuring out what’s going on with GPU versus real world, and lighting in CAD repeatedly hitting a wall.
No offense there, but GPU-generated lighting is flawed, if not wrong… because it’s based on algorithms disregarding the fact that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, photon-based and bearing a charge.
Are we going to be okay without a “true” representation of light, or is it worth a few more research and coding, in order to compare nature-made and GPU-made?
Ah, lighting engineers. I tell you, it’s sometimes unbearable for us (my fellows and I) to be there between what is, what can, can’t, should or shouldn’t.
I’d go for the best of both worlds anytime, but there’s this “what if” that keeps me wondering and pondering.
See? I’m not even started explaining the nature of light, and it’s already huge, hahahaha!
Physics and code only would be terribly boring here on the forum.
Perhaps do you know if there’s any other place I can discuss about such topics without being a bore, yet still bringing up relevant ideas?
I think it’s an interesting topic, but developing hardware, capable of that, is definitely the real of the GPU makers, so maybe try to their specific forums. There are already ray tracing accelerators which do quite a good job.
Light calculation in general is extremely demanding, turning on ray tracing in most games that support it, halves performance (or worse), but it’s a field that’s quickly advancing. Most cases they are trying to make up the lost performance with AI upscaling, like DLSS and FSR.
