3Shape Questions and Comments and Cali commnets.

[tonester]

I bought my 3Shape from Glidewell. Great facility, great people, and they treated us great. I would recommend them, their IT dept is quite helpful. Training was good but we would have been better off had we seen the new videos from capacaedmy.com. Thanks Bob. Wished I'd seen before. We could have saved that deer in the headlights thing. Due to Cap's training and generosity I would surely consider purchasing a scanner from them as well.

Here is my question to 3shape users: I have a 710 and the software is 2.5.5.21 from Glidewell. That software is what Glidewell says that they feel is the most stable and what they are comfortable supporting though they will update me if i want. They run that 2.5.5.21 on 80% of there work the other 20% they use the latest versions for bars, partials, etc. They feel 2.5.5.21 is the fastest and most stable for the basics. I know many that are running 2.6.9.11 and they feel it is stable and an improvement over what I'm running.

Please share your thoughts, I'm a newbie.

By the way California was beautiful. Perfect weather and very nice people. Parking spaces every where though are too small. Not a bad trade off for the beauty and weather. I''ll be back!

Sorry I missed you in Cali Mark. Not nearly enough time. I'd appreciate your comments on the software.

Thanks All!

 

[CoolHandLuke]

i run 2.6.9.5, i find no great difference between the distributions as an end user; i have very subtle tweaks to my package to make it my own, as should anyone with this software.

however if your software will still allow you to output .stl files, you should be flexible enough to accommodate milling from almost any milling site, printer, or such. this is a feature i would find of greatest use, and to my knowledge it exists as part of the 2.5.5.x distribution; ask glidewell, they'd know better.

the only instability i ever had was when we used the d250 scanner; stuff kept crashing, blurring, it was baaaaaaaaad.

710 never crashed on me yet, touch wood.

 

[tonester]

Thank Cool. I was just wondering because my 2.5.5.21 version doesn't use smile composer, auto cutting proximal contacts, virtual articulation, etc. and I was wondering if I should upgrade to at least 2.6.9.11 despite Glidewell states that they don't see the advantage(though they will uprgrade me).

 

[YMS96]

Running 2.6.9.12. There were some major cam issues in some of the previous versions, and they are fixed now in these more recent revisions. You do know you are running 2009 software and they are about to release 2012 - you paid for it so you might as well install it. If you don't like the way it is, then you can change the design module on the order form to function within the 2009 software, same as you are doing.

 

[CoolHandLuke]

i dont like the smile composer, but the virtual articulator is SUPERAWESOMESAUCE.

 

[tonester]

Yes, I know it is 2009 which is what made me start questioning.That is my thought too that I can update and still have access to the 2009. Because I'm a newbie I don't know much i'm taking their advice to stay with the 2009 version when I here others using later versions.

Cool, what don't you like about smile composer since i don't have it??? Glidewell stated that, that wasn't a benefit to them which is one reason they're content with the 2009 version for 80% of their useage..

 

[JayH]

There were some major cam issues ...

What are "cam issues"?


I don't like smile composer as it seems to add unnecessary steps to the process. Whatever happened to the "one-click" design? (rhetorical for you smart-a$$es out there )

It also seems incomplete (e.g. why not a default smile library like default anatomy libraries for different elements?) and occasionally pops errors. At least up through 2.6.9.8.

 

[tonester]

Glidewell also states that smile composer adds steps and takes longer to design with. I actually don't even know anything about smile composer so I have no comparison as I'm using a 2009 version as recommended and loaded from Glidewell.

 

[CoolHandLuke]

i can echo the previous sentiments, as i too find the smile composer to be a waste of good code; if it were at all adjustable with some small parameters (for example: one step proportion control instead of stretching/skewing the entire design) or if it even took the dies into any account (or even the waxup - or even your own custom wax library by default) instead of smearing the 3shape shapes all over the place, it might be worthwhile to utilize this feature.

however you can't turn it off, you are stuck using it.

however its not all bad. i just hate having to go through it and re-add my own wax library each time the smile composer turns itself on (every case over 2 units full anatomical). at least once thats done theres less steps and morphing to go through.

 

[YMS96]

What are "cam issues"?

Sometimes importing materials screwed up the cam output, making stl's difficult to produce. These were addressed in more recent versions (check the What's New for specifics).

The smile composer in 2012 is greatly improved. I saw a sneak peak and it's leaps ahead of what it is now.