I’m curious if anyone has had any interaction with Shapr3D? Any comments?
Have been playing a bit, latest update is the pattern tool, so they have a long way to go.
image.png
Frank_Oostendorp what would you say is the target audience? 3D print based Makers? Tablet users? Mobile users?
A few users I know, use it for basic parts and assemblies. Most of these users tried SolidWorks, but could not master it. All of them did not take any training or put the time to run through all tutorials. The workflow in Shapr is simple, not many options to choose, so in a few hours you can have results.
It’s actually overall all pretty good when it comes to CAD on a mobile platform. They’ve really built it from the ground up to work on the iPad not just stuck some trimmed back desktop version. While it’s not a direct replacement it is a nice on-the-go solution.
1 Like
Just now, one of the Shapr3D users I know, who designed a huge machine with it, is starting production. Now he could use the flat patterns of many sheet metal parts in his machine. Could I please make these with SolidWorks…
What is preventing you..?
Original designer, who took half a year to get the machine finished in Shapr3D, for creating images only. (Main image to create to customers is always the machine is almost ready. 
)
Can’t convince him that making production drawings and all necessary files, including GDT and other small details, like materials, K-factors, etc. could take more than a couple of days. <()>
1 Like
Lol is your designer by any chance a salesman also? 
Maybe you could have him help you so that he realizes the workload he’s asking to be done.
Correct, he’s a true salesman. Small details are not important, as long as the big story looks good. You know, the type that thinks almost right is good enough, every profile is straight and flat, bends are exactly 90°, nobody will notice, ISO standards are crazy, etc.
Me myself, get a bit nervous when I see two bearing houses in sheet metal flanges, connected by 4 bended (bent?) flanges, supporting huge rotating masses, with rigid radial bearings. 
Sounds like a job I was doing recently. What the client was hoping would be under £1000 turned into over £10000 when the full realisation of the project was understood.
Though I think the funniest one was when a guy rang up asking for a design of a plastic bottle with not a basic surface shape. Adding to that he wanted certain max dimensions and a specific volume. He expected it could be done for £30!!!
Come on Rich! How hard can it be, just put the darned numbers in and let the program generate it!!
The bloke got quite irate, he said he maybe could go to £60.
Told him just wasn’t interested full stop and wouldn’t be sending him a quote, no point getting upset with me when your dream of paying nothing for something comes to a abrupt end. I just hope he ending up paying one of the design houses for the work, boy will that £30 look silly then.
Reminds me of when an external customer wanted our product assembly model to pull into their BIM building model. They didn’t understand when I told them it was 15,000 parts and too heavy for their software. And creating a useable outline for their use would take a week. They think we can just push a button and it’s done.
1 Like
I did some work for a customer once. I told him the project would be around $450-$500. 4 months later, after tons of feature creep, he was finally happy. When I added up how many hours I had in it, and called to discuss a fair price for both of us, he refused to pay more than the original $500 estimate.
We sorta have to deal with something similar. Hours sold versus hours worked on. Not every hour worked on is an hour sold. For instance, constant improvment of the product “shouldn’t” be part of what a client pays. A client does not get charged if his trailer is less then X years old and he is buying the same trailer. In that case, we will update his trailer with all the new little things we developped/simplified or fixed and he will get the latest version of his trailer. Removes frustration on the floor because of missing improvments and pleases the client with his trailer being up to date without having to pay for it(if he abided by the maximum timeframe allowed).
I was being very generous with my time. I was learning some new techniques, and it was a fun project, so even my updated “billed” hours would probably have been 1/3rd of the time I had invested. I was fine with the original number, for the original scope of work, but once he saw the prototype he wanted changes, and then he wanted a couple of variations to see which he liked, and then he wanted improvements on that, etc.
AFAIK, the parts never got manufactured. Despite my warnings, he had no concept that some of the changes he was asking for would require either a 4th axis CNC, or several more setups. I’m sure he was shocked when he sent the parts out to get quoted.
Quoting work like this is a challenge. Generally you have to spell out exactly what is being delivered and big/numerous changes will incur additional cost. Sometimes I quote with a +/-10% if there is some uncertainty…25% if there is a lot. Major variations of designs so someone can “select” one they prefer, I would probably quote as a +10-50% per variation depending on complexity of the design.
And sometimes I eat the cost, especially if its something I’ve not done before and I’m having to learn along the way. Just chalk that up to training on my time.
Just had almost an hour and a half meeting with a couple guys with Shapr3D. I’ve had it on my iPad for a couple years but just never had a particular need for it enough to spend the time to get proficient. They’re touting ease-of-use, particularly for concepting, but I’m trying to figure out how to use it in the context of concepting for industrial automation, for people who actually use SolidWorks on a day-to-day basis. It doesn’t seem that much simpler to knock out a rough concept model vs. creating the same thing in SW. Maybe I’m just too ingrained into the workflow of SW that I can’t imagine it being “easy to use” enough that I could sit there in front of a customer and model up something useful on my iPad. If I’m going back to my desk I’m just gonna open SW…
In my very jaded opinion….
They had a great tool, and then effed it all up. Adding history was a big mistake. It was supposed to be a simple, fast, light interface on a tablet. The lack of complexity was what was so great about it. I was very hopeful for the product, but history just destroyed all that.
2 Likes