Luis,

I’m genuinely sorry you have been put in this situation. Hope it gets resolved one way or the other.

Claus

Thanks, UGMENTAL.

It seems that migrating to another platform is indeed my current path. At this point, I have received no answer to any of the several emails I sent to legal@imsidesign.com. I've only received a response from a sales representative named Syed Gilani, using the exact same argument: that my license falls under policies that require purchasing a maintenance renewal or an upgrade.

It looks like they have changed their policy of honoring legitimate licenses, choosing instead to hold the activation hostage by ignoring a faulty DRM system (or is this lockout being done on purpose?).

Which software do you use now, UG?

Regards,

Luis G

Hello UGMENTAL,

I know Alibre and I tested it a long time ago on a Windows PC; I liked it and I think it’s a great option. The way you described how it handles licensing seems like the fair way things should work—the exact opposite of this IMSI DRM hijacking method.

I am also on my way to testing Plasticity, but I need to find a good companion tool to generate 2D technical drawings from those designs. I’m not sure if Rhino would be a good option for this, so please advise.

However, I really love using the Mac. That is one of the main reasons I always look for software that runs natively on it. Aside from the great features that Vellum, Cobalt, Concepts Unlimited, and Shark FX offered back then (in the early 2000s, I guess), running natively on macOS was the main selling point for me to adopt this software.

Even with all the bugs discussed here, those unique features were good enough to keep me hooked on using it (even during those frustrating times when I wanted to pull my hair out!). But this unethical practice is just too much. I cannot agree with it, to the point that I am now willing to invest the extra time and money to migrate to a completely different platform. At this stage, and due to the recent interactions I've had with the IMSI staff, I have lost all hope of getting a positive resolution.

Maybe these new IMSI corporate policies explain Tim’s absence from this forum (his last post was on March 22nd). I am guessing that he is probably not comfortable with this direction either.

Thanks for your support, dear friends. I will keep you updated on any news.

Regards,

Luis G

Edited by user Friday, June 19, 2026 12:34:25 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Fusion costs money: https://www.autodesk.com...ucts/fusion-360/overview
FreeCad is free: https://www.freecad.org/downloads.php?lang=en

Edited by user Friday, June 19, 2026 11:56:02 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

This probably is a good time to repeat that as much as I want to evangelize or champion SharkCAD, my prospective customers will ROAST me ALIVE, DESTROY ME, and rightfully tell me I destroyed myself when I committed to something I know they can't tame to their own or acquired files if when they buy my ship files with 5,000 non-rearrangeable layers. I hope Beta 10 includes layer rearrange ability features.

I've been for probably 10 LONG YEARS asking for something which I think is just a 1s and 0s thing, to unlock the artificial barrier that prevents layers being moved "outside current nested level".

It's as if someone deliberately wants this brand's products to be intermediate stages, not end-to-end whole-team.

If any company standardizes on this and doesn't plan ahead to use an SWBS or ESWBS, and sells to or works with someone who needs to rearrange 1000s of layers and can't do it inside the app, and can't access the layers via API, and cant export them to a spreadsheet, then sort them there, then can't reimport them without breaking associativity or history, people could rightfully be pretty perturbed.

I know in 2012 AutoCAD let me rearrange layers any way I wanted. But, that was at work. I don't care for AutoCAD, and at home I used PunchCAD ViaCAD and VCPro, then went on to SharkFX, SharkCAD Pro V9, then to SharkCAD Pro, v12.

It tears at my heart and soul every single session that my layers get unwieldy and untamable.

I get into conspiracy theories, and one is that this is some order or some threat for continued access to critically needed code or kernels, or that it's a gentleman's agreement go awry.

I want Tim to get his baby and his mojo back. I don't want to see PunchCAD ge the IBM treatment Lotus Development got. Lotus (besides its own mistakes) likely only accepted the IBM offer because MS played so ruthlessly dirty that Lotus' future was dried up. (Dirthy as in malicious compliance: Sure, Lotus cannget SDKs, but only at 11:45 pm on the eve of a new Windows release. Anyone not an enemy of MS got the SKDs and other code up to 6 mos or longer ahead. That kind of dirty was not even the tip of the iceberg.)

Going through mergers and acquisitions poisoned my soul and the way I feel about how our country doesn't tame M&As such that if things go bad, divorce, or automatic unwind is the ONLY WAY forward, so a good product can remain accessible and go its own way, ideally amicably, my solution is that any company I form will be with poison pills to deter any offers or to make it clear no IP or equity will be coming. Revenue sharing snd a limited-time JV. 1st sign of treachery, everything unwinds.

But, that's just me venting.