This will come across as a somewhat "nasty" letter. It's not that I'm trying to be nasty, I'm just going to lay it on the line and tell you like it is.
A rhetorical question: What is it, if anything, that makes Shark /AP at all superior to other, less expensive CAD software packages for people who are interested in designing general aviation airplanes? Answer: the AeroPack plugin and that's all... Rhino can do everything that Shark can and has a larger installed base and community support.
From my point of view, the AeroPack plugin is the ONLY thing that gives Shark an advantage over other packages for aircraft design and AeroPack is BROKEN, IT DOESN'T WORK CORRECTLY. There are several significant errors in AeroPack that have NEVER been addressed or fixed. It's been YEARS. Having actually been employed as a REAL preliminary design guy, (just across the room from Tim Olson) and not just some college kid or EAA yahoo who thinks he's an aircraft preliminary designer, I KNOW how the features are supposed to work. I've even gone to the trouble of documenting the problems in depth on both the DARCorp forum:
http://forum.airplanedesign.aero/viewforum.php?f=6 and the Punch CAD forum, AND I even worked with Tim Olson, directly, real-time, showing him the problems and why Shark/AeroPack is sadly deficient for actual airplane design work. Has anyone actually DONE anything about it? NO!
The polyconic surfaces functions don't work correctly, bodies of differing lengths which use the same control lines, don't match up at the MHB line. That means that I can't use the generated surfaces to make actual parts. Also, the software is incapable of making increasing wing-body radius fillets, such as on the Spitfire. It is also incapable of making a decent wing-body fillet on tapered wings. (polyconic surface tangent to edges)
Given that the only functions that make Shark/AP unique or superior in ANY way DON"T WORK, why should I drop another $495 for an upgrade to a piece of software that won't solve the problem? The answer is that I don't intend to and I can't recommend that anyone else do so. If and when the deficiencies in AeroPack that make it inadequate for actual aircraft design work get fixed, THEN I will gladly drop another $495 for an upgraded piece of software that actually works correctly. Until then, I'll keep my money in my pocket.
I'm sorry if the tone of this letter offends you, but I'd rather lay it on the line and have you know the real reasons than to be in the dark.
