How about a history like MoI3D? Also, a way to tweak parameters (like fillet radii or move distances) in the undo stack (as mentioned I think). Those 2 things along with the existing Dissolve command would go a long way without changing anyone's current workflow.

I personally would hate to see a true parametric tree implemented in Plasticity, that type of modeling is the opposite of free flowing creative work. Its so much more limiting to define everything before creating and having features breakdown when you change something deep in the tree would be infuriating. Parametric modeling has its place, and the companies that build it promote the crap out of it as the end all be all for all Nurbs CAD work.

Plasticity is all about direct modeling in Nurbs, making Plasticity tools faster and more efficient would be much better than parametric history. Direct modeling allows for more creativity, happy mistakes, deleting and starting over again quickly. It should be about, speed, agility, flexibility, and intuitive control of the interface and geometry. Like sculpting clay.

There are a few areas that I think "History" as its done in Alias would be quite beneficial and compliment the direct modeling approach well. For example changing blend and radii parameters or bridge curves that update when the curves that they link to are moved for example. But this would need to done tool by tool and be breakable with the click of a button.

The way things work now are great! I can just slide a surface over and eliminate or create some other feature it's genius and creates a nice direct modeling flow. Maybe there are some "history like" options to allow for certain other features to update along with the movement but a parametric tree would kill the entire concept. Go use Sausagewerks, Frustration360, CreHole, or any other parametric software out there that force an engineering mindset on the artist for that ;)

Forget history its all about whats next!

Just a regular Undo button and an Undo list would be enough for me. :)

Sadly, without that feature. plasticity is nothing for me.

On shape has a pretty good one

I'd love to see a less restrictive history similar to the record history in Rhino to speed up workflow for tweaking sweeps and possibly , lofts etc with curves without the added complexity and thought that is required to build a good parametric model

Requests for parametric history in some form is unlikely to diminish, for obvious reasons.

Given that this feature may not be on the horizon, I propose a different approach to address the need. A strategy that reduces reliance on parametric history while enhancing the way Plasticity functions could be highly beneficial.

I suggest implementing a (referred to as "history") that includes features such as "checkmarks" or "milestones," with default names for actions taken (e.g., Move, Patch, Loft, etc.). This enhancement could make a substantial impact by:

In short:

Currently Plasticity lacks an undo-redo history system which a lot of users expect because it's incredibly useful for:

Error recovery: Quickly fix mistakes without losing work.

Exploration and experimentation: Freely try different changes knowing you can revert.

Learning: Step back through actions to understand processes.

Version control: Compare and revert to previous states of work.

User experience: Provide a sense of control and reduce frustration.

Parametric History can be so retstrictching I often stay away from it these days. I trained using Solidworks, so coming from a CAD background and not a 3D modeler, when entities are changed later in the the timeline it breaks the tree or timeline and turns into a massive fault finding excerise and detracts from the creativity of modeling. Plasticity currently uses more of the direct modeling workflow which is so much more powerful and less restritching to the user. Plasticity offers a much more hands on approach and is often quicker to remodel the object than to fault find in a history tree. There are plenty of CAD solutions that offer history based modeling already. For plasticity, which is a small development team, adding complexity such as this doesn't make sense ATM at least.

Plasticity would at a guess need to develop two versions or the same software to allow for history or not. You can't compare Autodesk products to Plasticity without understanding the costs, HR and resources involved! Take BriscCAD, NanoCAD, IronCAD and so on (there are loads of them) that all are different but ultimately are using the Autodesk API for developing their products where all the heavy lifting is already done.

When all said and done PEOPLE need to learn the right tools for the job.

No creative design software should have history based modeling period! History based modeling if at all should come after, what do I mean, well in the engineering stages when enigeers need to keep changing a design for one reason or another. Time and Place. If you need History based modeling use one of the current 30 PLUS products (Alibre Atom) for example, Cheap mans Solidworks.

Alternatively gain 10 Years plus experience of working with history modeling in a professional setting, you will soon learn to hate history based software. Fusion 360 does well because you can turn OFF F**king History based modeling. If people look at the trend from Corporate CAD software, they are all transicioning toward direct modeling approach, SolidEdge, DesignSpark Mechanical, SpaceClaim, etc. You have to ask yourself, Why is this?

There are a lot of interesting points made in this discussion. At first I agreed with the idea of introducing parametric history into plasticity, and then I changed my mind.

But, perhaps Plasticity could take inspiration from an idea from BricsCAD, which now includes an AI based system for "parameterising" a non-parametric CAD model. I'm not sure of all the details of the BricsCAD system, but what I am thinking is that -- as an export option -- Plasticity could generate a nice-and-tidy parametric sketch-based history from a non-parametric model and its change history. This file would then be imported into a parametric CAD software -- I assume based on parasolid -- where it could then be tweaked and revised in the ways that parametric CAD solutions support. If implementable, this would mean that Plasticity users can still enjoy what makes its workflow distinctive, but also retain users who need a parametric options as part of their pipeline.

I am leaving Plasticity for Fusion 360 because the workflow in plasticity is just too destructive. Countless times I have had to restarted a design from scratch.

However, I miss how easy it is in Plasticity to do things. I hate the "you have to sketch everything first" of Fusion.

A combination of both systems - Plasticity with parameters - would be the 8th world-wonder. @Nick, you would get a god-like status in the 3D design world !