I spent the past several months, almost a year, wasting time as my file sizes grew enormously. I was using "skin surface" to draw surfaces between frames in my ship hull model. The model represents a notional ship some 562 feet long. I did initially try "ruled surface", but my original models were sufficiently bad enough that in the sonar dome area i was getting terrible surfacing. So, i inadvertently learned that skin surface made a more acceptable surface.

As time went by, i kept going back to the Delftship application to refine the source model. I spent maybe 2 weeks pushing points, reviewing the hydrostatics outputs for constant, incremental improvements (I have the Delftship Free app, not the Pro app, which has automated fairing... and costs over $500, which i DO NOT have...).

Recently, i yet again pitched out my model and went crazy/wild further refining a few more points in the hull. Somewhere along the line it got better and i imported the .dxf into ViaCAD Pro. Now that i am using ruled surfaces, my files are much smaller, mainly because i started chafing like crazy to find out to manipulate the TYPE of surface being created. I started making simple surfaces or copying into a new file the stations/frames from my main drawing, and saving them and comparing file sizes. With skin surfacing, and not even a fraction of my model surfaced, the file was at 85MB and climbing. Now, with ruled surfaces roughtly the same amount of surfacing is taking up only some 16MB.

I also learned that turning off ALL the layers and saving cut down the closed files size of the previous file down to some 12-20 MB vs 60-80 MB. So, now i try to get into the habit of turning off ALL layers (leaving even just ONE object viewable means enduring the full save/closed file size), and then on reopening the file, turning on one layer at a time. It would, however, be nice to have a larger task list of current, recent, and related files.

in fact - whenever you 'surface add' or 'surface remove' one surface from another and then delete the remainder .. the surface remains present in the feature tree and therefor is an unnecessary burdon on your model

Why ?

Sorry if I hijacked your thread ZLC .. got a bee in my jocks about this

Steve - Have you read somewhere that this is a feature ?

No, I thought it a bug. Deleted surfaces/geometry should (IMHO) have all links removed. It is that reason (links being kept) that I believe causes issues where I get various deleted surfaces reappearing when not expected.

- Steve

In the next release? Do you not mean fixing in updates/patches to the current release?


- Steve

A need to completely re-write the code for a tool would infer that the tool as never, or will ever, work correctly. Which would put forward bad development of the product.

Which puts forward a fact that bugs are going from one version to the next without a fix.
One of the main problems with software vendors is the fact they are allowed to sell software "As is",... enough said on that for now :rolleyes::D .


- Steve

Agree - a focused voice is required at this point .. I've tried this before and apart from NickB usually, it falls flat

Like you, I too need to express my exasperation sometimes .. especially when I see long-standing bugs avoiding Tim's zapper.

However, I also want to try to do it constructively and acknowledge how quickly things are changing, particularly these last 2 years

I just wanted to say - whilst debating the issues we come across, we should do our best to keep the progress going

I do actually believe Tim gives it his all - but like others I wish he was cloned a few times over

I'm still serious about voicing to Tim which of these of these issues I feel are holding us back - I think this is healthy .. and I think if we can agree on what where we need to see more progress - Tim will likely respond

Antoine - I feel your pain

I also taught it and it was very tough going - that was 7 or 8 years ago now - it's much better now, but I imagine still frustrating

Despite how far things have come since then - we really do HAVE TO STEP IT UP NOW and get things runner smoother !

Shark / ViaCad, is buggy, and often does not give the results that one would expect, BUT often that is because of sloppy operator error. For example having multiple lines or solids sitting on top of each other. Corners that are not trimmed exactly, lines that don't quite connect, or having snap to plane on then wondering why you cant connect lines in different planes or extrude into another plane.

The tool is incredibly powerful, but that power comes at a price, and that price is that you have to pay attention to the small stuff if you want things to work as expected. The drafting assistant makes it way to easy to build sloppy geometry, and the copy key makes it to easy to copy items in place and then blame it on the tool instead of the user when things don't work.

There are bugs, lots of bugs, and parts of the interface that could do with a major update, but try and find another tool with comparable power at a comparable price and you always come back to Shark. Even Shark's nearest competitor Cobalt is almost twice the price at $3000 and upgrading from previous versions is between $1300 and $1700, compare that to the $500 that Shark upgrades cost and it is an incredible bargain.